On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:44:00 -0400, "Jim Harvey"
> If you must adjust controls or add filters
>> to move an unacceptable picture to acceptable, that
>> itself is a notable liability.
>Come on David, you're better than that. IF you are not willing to adjust
>your specific camera to deliver the best picture ( or the most pleasing one
>to you) then you might as well shoot straight 8mm.
You missed the point (I point out later in the post
that the pictures of *all* camcorders can be improved
over stock with suitable adjustments - and I pointed out
that I make specific adjustments to the already-excellent
VX2000 picture, with these changes listed in the review
at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm). But, if
you **MUST** make serious adjustments to move an
otherwise unacceptable picture to acceptable, *this* is
relevant, and a notable liability for this camera...
(as I said...;-).
>>In stock form, I consider
>> the GL-1 picture to be clearly inferior to that of the
>> TRV900,
>The key word here is "consider". You're using a personal preference to
>denigrate (and rather strongly I might add) and perfectly good camera that
>delivers perfectly good results regardless of your personal bias.
Again, *read what I said*...! (Especially the "disclaimer"
at the end of my post.) There are objective standards
for picture quality; there are observable picture faults in
video images (an understatement!!!;-); camcorders ***do***
vary in their picture characteristics and qualities, and
as a result, some really are generally better overall than
others. For more on video picture characteristics, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm. If you
mind some picture defects less than I do, or value some
characteristics more than I do, we may well disagree on
the preferences for our "best", but this does not deny that
some are better/worse than others observed objectively, and
my conclusion above is supportable on those terms (the GL-1
image has more observable defects, and to a greater degree
than does the TRV900 image, under most [but not all]
common shooting conditions). I pointed some of these out
specifically to you in an earlier post, and though you may
still prefer an image with these negative characteristics,
objectively, the GL-1 image really is "clearly" inferior
to a better picture. This takes only simple observation - it
is not "rocket science". I have been observing aspects of
lens and imager characteristics for almost 45 years - but
the specifics are not hard for others to observe, also, when
shown (or are they...? ;-).
>> ...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...;-)
>Again, your personal opinion. But this is becoming more clear each time you
>post. SONY's are your preference to the exclusion of all other brands, you
>have a particular beef with the CANON units, be they GL-1's or XL-1's or the
>XL-1s.
My "beef" is that their pictures, at a given price level,
are inferior to others (and, BTW, I gave the Panasonic
EZ30U pretty high marks for some of its image characteristics,
and often recommend the JVC 500 and Panasonic 200 as
higher-end alternatives...).
>This flys in the face of the empirical results being achieved by
>numerous professionals who are shooting broadcast features with the cameras
>that you so despise.
Again, *read what I said* - I should not need to point
out the same obvious thing again: no matter WHAT is
used for productions, whether it is the BBC's use of
VX2000s, a released movie shot with a PC1, or whatever,
THIS DOES NOT INDICATE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A
PARTICULAR CHOICE FOR WHATEVER UNKNOWN
REASON BY SPECIFIC PEOPLE. There is no value in,
"XYZ is used by lotsa people, therefore it is good" (observe
the popularity of the Yugo, for instance...;-). AND, again,
read my "disclaimer"!;-) The use of a particular model of
camcorder by anyone or even predominantly by a particular
group DOES NOT indicate relative image quality, good *or*
bad... This is rather basic stuff, really...
>Perhaps it is the LACK of publicity that the SONY's get
>in the number of features that are shot on your beloved SONY's that has you
>all in a lather. That too is silly, as the SONY's have produced a goodly
>number of features as well. The plain truth of the matter is that miniscule
>variations in "resolution" are seen only by expensive test equipment rather
>than the eye. CONTENT and Production Value has far more currency to
>virtually everyone but you.
Why do you argue side issues in place of the OT ones?
I never said content and production values had little or no
value. They obviously do (especially if a Sony PC1 is chosen
for the production...!;-). My particular area of expertise
is in the area of observed image quality, and on this I
write... As for "beloved Sony", when any real competition
comes along, I will be happy to point that out (we all want
better gear - nothing is perfect). Why fight so hard against
the observable: currently, Sony gear in Mini-DV offers the
best picture performance at the level of gear we are talking
about. It is you and other "Canon-lovers" who cannot accept
the easily-observed. This is the mystery...
And, BTW, the difference in resolution between the GL-1
and the TRV900, under some conditions, is quite obvious;
between the GL-1 and VX2000, it is obvious under most
conditions...
>> 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;
>I am going to keep this quote as the perfect example of a left handed
>compliment. Akin to saying "You're not NEARLY as fat as that circus freak".
I pointed it out to put things in context, since people
often come to the incorrect conclusion that if I say
the GL-1 picture is inferior to others (it is...), that
it must be unuseable/unacceptable/terrible/etc. (it isn't).
But in a rational discussion of relative image quality,
it is basic that if some are better, some are worse.
Again, this should *not* be a difficult-to-grasp basic
concept... (but sometimes it appears to be....;-).
>Very few people that I know spend their time shooting resolution patterns.
>Most of them are busy making a living and pleasing their editors and
>producers and clients. Some of them, amazingly, are using CANON's to
>accomplish this.
>Jim Harvey
Well, yes, of course... You state the obvious, and this
counters nothing I've said or done to date...;-) And,
picture quality is not just about resolution (see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm), and,
BTW, I never use resolution charts, for various reasons...
(you assume I do, yet there is none shown/mentioned in my
reviews or articles). Again, read what I actually write;
look at what I actually show - don't jump to conclusions,
especially those based on prejudices you may have...
There exist recognizeable, objective standards of picture
quality, observable by anyone open-minded enough to do
that, and by those standards (agreed on by most observers),
some camcorders produce higher quality images than others.
That is all I'm reporting on, whatever else you think it
is I'm doing....