David H Dennis wrote in message <34C678E1.1CFB@freelink.net>...
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:

>> Hmmm, why dismiss the VX-1000 so quickly...? ;-) I add a side handle
>> to mine which improves handling considerably for me. Occasionally
>> I add a shoulder brace.

(And a monopod - and, if forced, a tripod...;-)

>Getting a used VX-1000 would certainly save me quite a bit of money -
>looks like a shade over $ 1,000. But the XL-1 has a jog/shuttle
>control, which makes it work like an editing VCR, so that could save me
>the price of an editing VCR, which is a considerable saving to say the
>least.

This feature may not be important if you go to a NLE system,
and the tape in a VX-1000 can be moved a frame at a time, making
it relatively easy to cue the tape in the camera precisely...

>In addition, I've been impressed by the numerous posts that have
>said how awesome the quality of XL-1 pictures is. Since the point of
>all this expenditure is to get awesome quality - and no matter what I
>get, I'll be spending a substantial amount of money - it seems like the
>XL-1 is the logical choice.


I would wait for the hype to die down, and /or look for yourself...
I suspect that with good use of the VX-1000 custom set-up controls,
the real differences may be minor (except possibly under low light
conditions -if- the XL-1 "line" problem is solved...) The Sony
produces VERY high quality images, especially if you know how
to optimize the camcorder (sharpness, color saturation, white
balance bias, auto exposure bias, and gain shift can be altered
in the custom menu - and auto exposure is easy to override).

>Anyone know when Sony's successor to the VX-1000 is coming out?


The future always holds promise - but then sometimes the
newest gear turns out to be not as good as older gear
(just more cheaply made...). Why wait for vapor...? ;-)

>> Add a couple of IBM 9-gig SCSI-II drives
>> and the Spark or DV-300 (and LOTS of sweat...! ;-) to a used
>> VX-1000, and you have a first-rate video system at a bargain price.

>One of my basic questions was how does that compare to buying two XL-1s
>and using them as an editing system by copying directly between them?
>That's the same price as buying the NLE system, and it looks like it
>would be better at maintaining image quality. Then all I'd need is a
>FireWire card or Snappy for capturing stills.


There is NO loss in image quality using a Spark FireWire editing
system - that's the point! But the convenience and control differences
between NLE and assemble-editing is vast. (I have had two DV
camcorders for sometime - and unused Thumbs Up, and Video
Director for even longer...;-) If you are serious about editing,
NLE is the way to go (and now it does not mean accepting
picture generation losses! ;-). Personally, I have no use for
a DV VCR - the same money buys a camcorder that can also be used
to play/dub tapes.

>Also, what do you think of Pinnacle's Video Director? It seems like an
>interesting compromise between the expense of direct non-linear editing
>and the lack of automation in regular editing, but I realize there is
>going to be a quality drain when video is piped through it.


Couldn't get into it - though it seemed like a neat idea when I
bought it...

>> (though a Snappy can give you the highest quality stills from the DV
>> camcorder for web use [see my web page {index page photo, and "Bob's
>> Baseball Game" under "Changing Showz"}], with nothing else required;

>Not bad! And a Snappy would save me a ton of money over a FireWire
>card.


Stills only - though I know someone who does clay animation with it.
The still output quality of the Snappy from DV action video appears
to be at least as good as that from expensive DV frame-grab cards
or from the still mode of DV camcorders... (or from most digital
still cameras...;-).

>> web video quality requirements can be met with any old VHS camcorder;
>> and Hi-8 [edited on a good system...] can give good VHS dupes).
>> (BTW, there is no need to dump the HD-saved image to VHS - dumping
>> it to the DV camcorder makes a perfect copy [no generation losses]
>> for archiving/mastering, and later copying to VHS [if necessary...!;-])

>I sympathise with your dislike for VHS. :-(


It is generally rather horrid...;-)

>By the way, why is it that if you take a professional level setup and
>record it to VHS, it still looks far better than a video produced
>directly on VHS? I would have thought that use of VHS would totally
>degrade the quality whether it was originally produced with pro or
>amateur equipment, making pro equipment sort of pointless, but this
>doesn't actually seem to be the case.


Do you mean well-made VHS video tapes, like some pre-recorded movies?
If so, I think there is more going on in the look of the duping than
just good original video gear... VHS tapes from 35mm film, transferred
carefully (a specialty operation...) can look -very- good... My VHS
dupes from DV do not look THAT good...! ;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com