On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:14:27 -0600, Chris Hurd wrote:

>Howdy from Texas,

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> I didn't like the "everything is orange" look of the
>> GL-1 (in addition to other "misses" in the picture...).

>You know, David, I appreciate your input and respect
>your viewpoints, and I'm grateful for your consent to quote
>you on my website, but I have to tell you something...
>
>I have talked to countless professional videographers and
>photographers who simply love the picture the GL1 produces.
>You're one of the very few photographers I've ever known
>who don't like it. These are always subjective evaluations.
>You are without question most outspoken here on the
>newsgroups, but I feel compelled to tell you that from
>my experience, your opinion is definitely in the minority.

I suspect it is...;-)
But I can't get past the color-bias, lower resolution,
edge-effects, stairstepping, etc. of the GL-1 picture,
when in most situations virtually all other 3-chip
Mini-DV camcorders produce technically-better pictures
(and which are, for me, also aesthetically better).
I don't wear sunglasses, since I want to see colors
as they are; I don't shoot with a GL-1 'cuz I don't
want everything colored orange - and with saw-tooth
edges and halos...;-)

>>>Canon GL-1 + [advantages]:
>>>
>>>Warmer more accurate colors.

>> I question this - maybe your TV is set too blue (common).

>I don't question it at all. He's talking about that distinctive
>Canon look. I see it all the time on perfectly calibrated
>monitors... the Canon look is just more life-like than the
>Sony. Sony images look like "video." Canon images don't...
>they look better... somehow. The new CCDs in the VX2000
>have improved the Sony reputation, admittedly. I'll give you that.

I guess our tastes are different - I see the multiple
faults in the Canon images (including those of the XL-1),
which have more "artifacting" and "non-neutral"
imaging qualities than Sony 3-chippers. The Canon
image, with all these defects, looks more "processed"
to me... BTW, the owner of the Canons I checked out
agreed - he tried and then immediately dumped two XL-1's,
and more recently his two GL-1's almost unused, in
favor of a TRV-900 and JVC-DV500, and now the PD150.
He does a lot of Nat. Geo. work and science-shorts,
and the Sony's (and JVC) just plain had better image
quality for his production work (he is used to high
quality - he started with film, went to BetaSP, now
uses Mini-DV, and does some very impressive "pretty"
video productions). As for the VX-2000, using the
custom controls, I get a picture that is VERY nice,
very "natural-looking", with minimal negative
characteristics - it is just plain fun to view.
I'm mystified by the appeal of the Canon image...
(Well, the color-bias is close to "rose-colored
glasses", so mebbe that's why...! ;-)

>>> 30 fps frame mode.

>> Ummm.....;-)

>Umm, that's a distinct advantage! Many professional
>shooters love Frame Movie mode and swear by it. On
>the GL1 it's accessed by an external switch instead of
>in the menu, making it that much better.

Again, if you want to throw away one of video's
advantages over film (sharp and smooth rendition
of motion), by all means use it...!;-)

>>> Better image stabilization. ?

>> Maybe.

>Both the Canon GL1 and the Sony VX2000 have optical
>image stabilization, which is a Canon technology licensed
>to Sony. Just like LANC is a Sony protocol licensed to
>Canon.

Yes, but there are different implementations of it, in terms
of what it looks like "on-screen". I think the VX-2000
fails here, as I said... (odd, since the VX-1000 stabilizer
was so good).

>> I pointed out in another post, all
>> wine tastes like vinegar to me...;-)

>You just haven't had the right wine yet, David!
>We should get together sometime and take
>care of that discrepancy.

The wine would be wasted...;-)
As the Sony picture is on you...;-), ;-), ;-)