On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:33:22 -0500, "James Kiricov" wrote:

>I like your page, and you obviously went to a lot of trouble to produce it
>for us. But my friend, your clips really prove nothing other then the TRV
>900 can produce good acceptable qaulity as we already knew. But I like what
>you did better then what David Ruether has done on his "babble" page
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com, where he shows us still shots of the same
>model and street scene with different models under different conditions.
>The still pics are so subjective that its funny. You would get different
>"opinions" from each different person looking at them.
[...rest deleted...]

Uh, that was kinda the point of putting up unmodified
(except for careful, uniform-rate compression for
practicality...) frame-grabs from footage shot with
eight different camcorders under the same five
conditions - so you, or anyone else COULD compare them!
Included were conclusions about the stills (some people
may not be aware of what they are looking at and what one
can glean from these stills, and a bit of information
about that can be useful, rather than the realization
later that they had overlooked something in a camera
purchase which, once discovered, becomes a sore point).
And, anyone is free to come to their own (different)
conclusions - nothing in what I had hoped would be a
useful comparison would preclude that (and I trust
I made that point on the web site...). In addition,
several people correctly pointed out that stills
alone are not conclusive - but short of putting out
uncompressed motion-video (impractical on the web site,
but I did offer a CD with brief DV samples of image
and sound from the eight camcorders - with decidedly
"underwhelming" response...), there is no good way
of satisfying that problem - but I tried to give a
written description of the motion-video when the
stills didn't show something well (you would prefer
I make a game of it, I take it from what you said?).
I added sound and noise comments, also. I even added
two-sample results with one of the camcorders. What
else would you like??? This is silly. You apparently
don't agree with my conclusions on the GL-1. Well,
that's OK...;-) The GL-1 has a lot going for it,
but there are some things about it that would sure
bug me, at least, in time... Perhaps I have provided
some leads of things worth checking-out on the GL-1,
and on the other camcorders covered (ALL of which
have +'s and -'s), when looking into a purchase...
Seems like this would be useful material to have
access to, but maybe not for you...;-)
For those interested in seeing it, the comparison
(VX-1000, TRV-900, TRV-9, PC-1, EZ30U, XL-1, GL-1,
and additional comments on the VX700, PC-7, and EZ1U)
are at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
Oh, and BTW, there is also an article titled,
"SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)",
also listed under the "I babble" index - I prefer
"real-subject" tests to chart-testing, since, in the
end, I consider them more informative about the
results one might expect in "real-world" shooting...
Enough on this, I guess, with this post - look at the
site, if you want, and decide for yourself the
usefullness of the material provided.