>news:3d0ebdb1.5960253@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:26:20 -0400, "Jim Harvey"
>> wrote:

>> >...snip...

>> >> Oh, can I resist...? 'Course not...! ;-)
>> >> "Canon-myopia" is too irresistible! ;-)
>> >> First, if your reference is the GL-1, it is rather
>> >> low as 3-CCD Mini-DV camcorders go (see:
>> >> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm

>> >I heartily agree! You should download the comparison grabs and look at
>them
>> >carefully. You will then notice ( if you have a functioning optic nerve)
>> >that the GL-1 grabs are much clearer than the Sony 900 stills. It's been
>a
>> >while since I stopped over at David's, but after re-examining the stills
>> >that he has there, it is apparant that the GL-1 makes a nicer picture.
>The
>> >low light shots of Peter look a lot nicer (Slightly warmer) with the GL-1
>> >than the 900.
>> >
>> >Couldn't resist either.
>> >
>> >Jim "depends on what you like" Harvey

>> Nor can I...;-)
>> If you look at the exterior scenes, where the lenses are
>> stopped down below f4 or so, the GL-1 image sharpness is
>> noticeably less than that of the TRV900 (and the TRV900
>> contrast and color is noticeably superior, also). If you
>> look at the "Peter, interior" images, the GL-1 image is
>> nearly monochrome orange; the TRV900 image has more neutral,
>> honest, and varied color (and shows less oversharpening
>> outlining on the shirt against the wall, about equal detail,
>> less irregularity in the rendering of the near-vertical
>> right side of the picture frame, and all the image frame
>> is there, without the black bars on the left and right);
>> if you look at the "tungsten room" frames, the GL-1 image
>> is again unnaturally orange (though not bad here), with the
>> TRV900 image neutral, with better tonality, about the same
>> detail level (but with fewer oversharpening effects), and
>> without the near-vertical line-rendering problems of the
>> GL-1. The GL-1 "shines" in only two respects relative to
>> the cheaper TRV900: the 20X zoom range is longer, and the
>> lens is enough better wide open to show a slight
>> resolution advantage with the lens wide open (only...).
>> The GL-1 sound with the built-in mic is also poorer than
>> it is with the TRV900. So, if you like orange interior
>> images, lower resolution (but more cartoon-edged
>> oversharpening effects), excessive contrast, "wobbly"
>> near-vertical lines, black frame edges, less low light
>> range, and inferior sound (all in a bigger package),
>> then I guess the extra cost of the GL-1 relative to
>> the TRV900 is worth it...;-)
>> BTW, www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
>> shows 29 video picture characteristics and defects.
>> Using the "key", you can find out what cameras' images
>> supplied the examples. The GL-1 is well-represented
>> for showing the possible defects, for good reason...;-)
>> David Ruether

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:32:44 -0400, "Jim Harvey" wrote:
>
>INteresting David, but I don't seem to have the edge problems that you
>describe. I of course, have changed some of the setttings to lessen the
>"electronic" effect that you illustrate. That in conjunction with the proper
>filters renders an extremely pleasing picture. As for the orange interiors,
>proper white blaancing can and will eliminate that problem.
>If you are taking the camera (any camera) out of the box and shooting with
>the factory presets, you'll probably experience a sub standard picture. The
>idea is to adjsut your camera ( again, any camera) to deliver the picture
>that you require.
>I think this is a subject that has been woefully ignored here and in other
>forums.
>Even the excellent JVC 500 and the Sony DSR300 benefit greatly from camera
>tweaking.
>Jim Harvey

I agree that tweaking the available picture controls *can*
improve the picture (I go into this at length in the VX2000
review, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm),
since use of the custom controls in the VX2000 camera is
very effective in optimizing the picture (and biasing the
excellent VX2000 auto controls is more useful with this
camera than switching to manual control), but you said
that in my comparison frame-grabs, the GL-1 image looked
better. I disagreed. Now you say that with modification
of controls and addition of filters, the GL-1 picture
can look better than it does in the review images. But
this is true for all the cameras reviewed, and the GL-1
resolution, under many circumstances, is already somewhat
below that of all the other 3-CCD cameras reviewed, and
reducing the excessive standard sharpening to reduce the
edge effect also reduces whatever impression of sharpness
there is...
So as not to just test my skill in matching camera WB,
exposure, etc. in the reviews, and to best compare them
*stock*, the reviews compared the cameras in auto-mode,
unmodified. If you must adjust controls or add filters
to move an unacceptable picture to acceptable, that
itself is a notable liability. In stock form, I consider
the GL-1 picture to be clearly inferior to that of the
TRV900, contrary to what you said in your original
post, above... No filter or adjustments, though, will
cause the GL-1 picture to equal the quality of the
TRV900 picture under most circumstances (at a lower
price), or to equal the picture of the VX2000 (at a
somewhat higher price) under any circumstances (and the
disparity increases when you also optimize the pictures
of those cameras...), unless your taste is for
possibly-interesting, but distinctly non-standard,
video imagery...;-)
Lest we start another Canon vs. Sony war, let me again
give the disclaimer that the GL-1 picture is not terrible
or unuseable, and it is superior to that of most (though
not all, at this point) 1-CCD cameras; that no video
picture is perfect, regardless of price, and that the
best of the "handycam" D25 camcorders is only somewhat
better than the worst (though I regard the GL-1 picture
and sound as the worst of all the 3-CCD camcorders I've
seen, regardless of how much some owners may like
it...;-); that the point of the reviews is to
compare the performance of various models in stock
form, with minimal application of, or interference
by, my control choices to their inherent performance
(and not to "jump through hoops" to make them look
better than they are in stock form); and that with
intelligent application of some modifications, all
camcorders' video picture quality can be improved
over the stock automatic form...