On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:36:39 -0400, "Dirk J. Bakker" wrote:

[most of an "interesting" post deleted...]
>The obvious need to resort to snide tactics such as those "irresistible"
>name-calling comments, you failed to delete fast enough, or as a last
>resort your brand of sarcasm are reason enough as to why I, and many
>other people, have reason to write you off as one whose agenda is
>suspect, if not just unreliable.
[...]

I think the entire thread above is available to all,
and indicates which of us is the more objective/honest/
straight-forward in our writings here... And, as
I wrote above, I presented a camcorder comparison article
on the web in which the picture and sound characteristics
of several camcorders were compared under the same set
of varied conditions, using the least user-intrusive (and
therefore least outcome-coloring) methods of camera
operation possible. Due to web limitations, only frame-grabs
were presented (with descriptions of motion-effects and
audio characteristics added). The article is at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,
and is generally highly-regarded (and often visited).
As a supplement, since it had become evident that many
people are not familiar with the image characteristics
of video, and were therefore unable to draw conclusions
from the offered comparison frame-grabs, I wrote the
article at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.
You may look (or not), draw your own conclusions, or fail
to see/understand/appreciate what is offered - it is up
to you. I do recommend not denying the evidence, or
resorting to argumentative subterfuge to confuse/obscure
what the evidence shows, though (as DB is fond of doing),
since the same material I based my conclusions on is
available to all, at the sites above. People can check
the original material, draw their own conclusions, and
judge for themselves whether it is JB or myself who is
more objective in our views...