Phares wrote in message <34E09861.4442764E@home.com>...
>Greg Storey wrote:

[......]
>> Anyway, some of the details of this article that surprised me most was the
>> loss of resolution of video on recording and then playback when using DV.
>> For example, the article states that although you may have a DV camera that
>> claims 500 lines of resolution, by the time you play it back on a monitor it
>> will be considerably less, maybe 325 lines, due to the loss of resolution in
>> the conversion to and from DV tape. Also, the author compares DV to Hi8 (he
>> uses some footage he created on his Canon L2) and leaves the impression that
>> Hi8 produces a better picture than DV. So maybe I should head back to the
>> dealer and exchange my Canon XL1 for an L2!
>>
>> One of the big selling points of using DV has been that you can make
>> multiple copies (and/or generations) of first generation material, including
>> edits, without any loss of quality. Now it appears there are lots of
>> caveats and maybe first generation DV isn't even as good as first generation
>> Hi8. I'd like to understand all of those caveats. I plan to do all of my
>> video in DV including all editing and (hopefully) only have to worry about
>> resolution loss in original recording and final playback.

>I didn't read whatever article you are referring to but I have a couple
>things to comment on this. I own quite a bit of DV equipment now and I
>think the issues you are referring to are just plain wrong. I've owned
>a Canon L2 in the past as well. You stated you purchased an XL1. So,
>let me ask you then. How do they compare? I believe they are so far
>apart it's incredible that you would even bring up the two for
>comparisons due to it being totally unfair advantage with the XL1.
[.....]

I agree with the above, having owned a Canon L1 Hi-8 with two zooms,
and currently a mini-DV pair of Sony VX-1000's - the difference in
rendering ability of fine detail on the two formats/camcorders is
VERY evident in landscape work. With the L1, I would not dare shoot
subjects further than a few feet away if I wanted a reasonably sharp-
looking image; with the VX-1000, mid-distance landscapes look crisp,
and in ideal light with mid-small lens stops, I can get sharp-looking
distant bare tree branches, tree leaf-textures, rock textures, etc.
Mini-DV is the first relatively inexpensive format I have seen that
is good enough for landscape work, though a high-end format camera
with a multi-kilobuck lens attached will beat the VX-1000 in fine
detail rendering - but at a VERY much higher price. Add to that the
(uh, relatively painless and cheap...;-) ability to edit and copy
the mini-DV footage losslessly - and its resistence to drop-outs,
and it is a wonder format. Do I often see compression artifacts in
the images? Yes, but they are a reasonable compromise, given the
great advantages of the format.

--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com