[from DR post - most deleted by "Rich"...]
>> I believe I did just that, in my comparative reviews
>> of Sony, Canon, and Panasonic camcorders, at:
[www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 15:23:29 +1000, "Rich" wrote:

>I never questioned that you believed you did so. :-)

Ah - so you think, then, that I have "erred"
in the reviews...? If so, rather than continually
calling me "biased" here in these NGs (or, now,
"in error", perhaps...?), you might want to point
out specifics for discussion, a somewhat more
valuable persuit than "name-calling", perhaps...? ;-)

>As with all reviews, they're not the end-all arguments/debates many people
>them to be. It's closer to being a guide, and not much more. Better to
>have several "guides" rather than one. Better to try for youself, than rely
>on someone else.

I generally agree with this, and advise this, also - but
it does raise the issue of "standards". If I were to
say things in a photo NG similar to what has been said here,
I would be laughed off the NGs. In the still-photography
world, it is understood that the ideal lens and film are
ones that most sharply render the image, with the best
neutrality in terms of the other image aspects (like
color-balance, edge-effects, contrast, freedom from
a multitude of flare effects, linear distortion, grain
etc.) - and and that lenses and film that don't closely
approximate this ideal are considered to be either of
inferior quality (and therefore undesireable), or reserved
for special uses (fisheye lenses, soft-focus-lenses, etc.).
It is also understood that with the best "image-neutral"
gear/supplies, one can then photograph with the least
limitation from the gear/supplies, and one can also,
->***WHEN DESIRED***<-, apply any variation from this
(like color-shifting, softening, etc.). If I were to
say on a photo NG that "X" lens, due to its being a
somewhat substandard cheap zoom, gave me an image
"look" I liked, and that I therefore recommended it
for general use,I would properly be laughed at. In
video, the gear is incapable of anything like the image
excellence easily available in still photography, but
the idea should still exist that "image-neutral"
gear is still the ideal, and that excessive color-bias,
edge-effects, "jaggies", contrast-levels, etc. are
relatively undesireable and further from the
ideal - and that gear that shows these defects in a
relatively higher degree is less desireable than
"image-neutral" gear. A "look" derived from technical
deficiencies should not be imposed on all images, and
should also not be considered desireable for general
use... Yet this is what we hear here. "I like the
look of 'Y'"; "I prefer the 'warmth' of 'Z'",; etc.
While these may be true for the individuals involved,
it does not represent good advice for the selection of
general-use gear. And the reporting of these undesireable
image characteristics is considered here "opinion",
"bias", etc., even when the frame-grabs which show the
relative presence of these defects is easily accessed...
And, some even take my comments personally, as an attack
on them, since I didn't happen to like the particular
camcorder they chose to own.
Curious......;-)
I guess I'm calling for more sense than I have seen
in this thread and in a similar thread on this
NG. We should strive to select the best gear for our
purposes (or not, if that is your choice - but then
don't "cry" when the limitations of your particular
gear are pointed out...;-). These purposes vary,
and the camcorders vary in complex ways in their
degrees of satisfaction of the ideals, so reasonable
choices can be made that differ. BUT, to deny that
"image-neutral" standards exist, or should exist, I
think is pretty short-sighted...