On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:28:04 -0000, "Simon Page" <x@x.com> wrote:

>OK guys, interesting discussion here and one I am not qualified to join in

>on the technical front but can I just make these following points clear:

.

>1) Astley already has a VX2000 and was looking at another camera and using

>his as a second. So the question was not comparing the VX2000 but replacing

>it for something better.

One of the options, which he was favoring, was the DSR-250.

Since it has the same picture, but a somewhat different

physical "presence" and operating mode, than the VX2000,

it is useful to compare it with the VX2000/PD150 as

alternatives, as well as comparing all of these Sony

variants with the very different Panasonic and JVC

alternatives...

>2) I am only going on what I can see before me. The Sony cameras record

>their settings so I can see what a friends PD150 has been up to in low

>light. The gain from 9 to 18db is very noticeable. The DVC200 (and probably

>the JVC) does not need gain to film even in dim tungsten.

In the same light levels? I doubt it...

It is easy to get into this trap of comparisons

done under non-identical conditions. I do not doubt,

though, that under identical conditions, and even

with some attempt to equalize picture characteristics

with the available camera controls, that some (or even

most) may prefer the picture of the larger cameras over

the smaller, and there are good reasons for this (just

not necessarily the ones argued earlier...;-).

>3) The picture quality is superior on the DVC200 to the PD150 (and DSR250 as

>it's the same thing). Lens? CCD? I have absolutely no idea. But the

>difference is staring me in the face so how can I argue with it? :-)

You can't, assuming you made a reasonable attempt to make

the comparison under equal conditions, and also to adjust

all for as nearly similar picture characteristics as

possible.

>I am STILL confused by the 800 lines business and, if it makes no

>difference, why bother putting it on the camera except for marketing. It's

>also confusing about the "Super V" function apparently adding an extra 50

>"lines" vertical - my head hurts.

The second sounds like hype; the first *IS* hype. Or, to

make 530 horizontal TV lines of resolution, the lens

on the Sony would need to resolve about 800 lines

also. In other words, all cameras (and lenses) that

approach the theoretical limit for imaging resolution

that is permitted in 720x480 DV video (this would be about

540 TV lines), would need to start with about 800 lines

of resolution, so advertising that the Panasonic can

do this is like advertising that a car model has four

wheels (though, mebbe not - some "prosumer" camcorders

cannot resolve 500 TV lines...;-)

>And the trouble is, I can't have anything bad said about my DVC200 because

>I've fallen in love with her and I bought her a valentine card and tuck her

>into bed and.........

>Simon Page.

;-), ;-), ;-)

Sorry 'bout "reality checks" here, but you at least

appear to have a good enough camera to "defend" easily,

unlike others who in the past so vociferously defended

their XL-1s and GL-1s here in the face of any and all

logic and evidence indicating that perhaps these just

might have some serious shortcomings compared with

several alternatives (and not just in the picture

quality...;-). I have often recommended the Panasonic

and JVC cameras for those with the money and preference

for this type of camera, though I prefer small size,

light weight, and relative unobtrusiveness, leading me

to the Sony solution (though I may take a slight "hit"

in picture and sound quality [though mebbe not, for most

practical purposes...;-]). *If practical*, we would most

likely all prefer to shoot with IMAX gear, or at least

35mm film or HDTV, but this isn't going to happen for

most of us - and the Sony-VX2000/Canon-GL2/Panasonic-

DVX100/JVC-300 level of gear gets some of us close

enough to "high-quality" to be kinda happy.........;-)

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3e5eb101.18404785@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> On 25 Feb 2003 15:33:15 GMT, mitchgross@aol.com (MitchGross)

>> wrote:

>> >>>The DVC200 has 800 lines as oppossed to 530 for the Sony.

>> >>This is a misconception. They both have the same absolute

>> >>resolution limits of 720x480, which translates into about

>> >>540 TV-lines horizontal resolution, which neither can

>> >>theoretically achieve, but the better will approach more

>> >>closely (though the 530 lines of the Sony is purdy durn

>> >>close enough! ;-). The resolution cannot be significantly

>> >>higher, given the limits of the D25 format itself...

>> David Ruether