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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~