"Ollie
W. Holmes" <ollie_w_holmes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a16c4e85.0309211042.78f5762a@posting.google.com...
>
Moving Vision <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<NVos1fC3D6S$EwVp@movingvision.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >David Reuther has contributed to this group for many years now, and
>
> >has been a tremendous help to many.
>
> Exactly!
> I
agree that his web site has been very helpful in assisting
>
camcordorists in selecting among various competing models.
>
Nevertheless the purpose of a camcorder is to shoot a moving image,
>
thus, tests should be conducted on moving images, and if possible, the
>
camera (or camera operator) should be moving as well. Try a panning
>
shot of a brick wall or an electric grid. This will expose jaggies and
>
twitter faster than a speeding bullet. If you own a track and a dolly,
>
let the camera photograph a glass building that is curved. This is a
>
great way to reveal if there is a tendency to posterize, herringbone,
>
etc. Just still a frame and put that up as an example of camcorder
>
deficiency.
I
agree, and try in my reviews and comparisons to comment
on the
motion-video effects of each model, which vary a lot
from
model to model, even within the same brand. Also see
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
for more on
this
and other DV picture defects (some models show
unacceptable
levels of motion-artifacting or other effects).
Unfortunately,
it is still impractical to place full-resolution DV
on web
pages (and I would need to do it for both NTSC and
PAL,
and provide usable codecs for playback...) - and short
this,
showing more highly-compressed video samples would
be
misleading. Surprisingly, most motion (and other) effects
can be
illustrated in still frame-grabs from the motion-video
(and I
do shoot the tests intentionally hand-held, with some
motion,
of subjects like record collections, books, etc. that
show
these effects clearly...) - see also:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm.
>
Which camcorder would I pick? At a minimum, the Sony DSR-390. For 4:3,
>
this is the only thing good enough for dvd, at under $10K. 800 line
>
resolution, damn it! For motion pictures, I'd have to say, the Sony
>
HDW-F900. Example: Watch the movie View from the Top. You'll never
>
believe they shot this on HD. It looks so film-like, not like the Miss
>
America pageant (which also looks gorgeous, but rings of video). Why I
>
don't like the PD150: show me a single decent motion picture ever shot
>
with this camera. They don't exist. So, David, I hope you win the
>
lottery, so you can buy all this wonderful gear and post your reviews
>
online.
As
others pointed out, the TV resolution limit is set by the
medium
at 540 lines horizontal, regardless of the "head" end
resolution
- though greater head end resolution and lower
compression
(and higher format resolution, as with HD)
do
generally result in a better-looking image... Another issue
for me:
I will not use heavy/large/very-expensive gear. As
a
result, I will compromise image quality some to use "handy"
gear -
but among the many models at this level, there are
still
quality differences (or other preferences) that lead one
to
choosing particular models to work with (but fortunately,
the
differences at the top of this class are narrowing...).
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com