On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 03:13:42 +1000, "Rich"
>> Ah, here we have our basic difference...;-)
>> The picture defects I pointed out are not
>> "my opinion" (they are evident to anyone
>> who would look), but you find it preferable
>> to ignore (or, to even select for...) the errors.
>Perhaps a more accurate interpretation of your test results would be to say
>the camera with the "errors" does not suit your shooting style and ability
>as well as the camera without the "errors". Stating anything else does
>indeed become a stretch and - I dare say - an opinion. The qualities (a
>very important word) of video footage is heavily dependant on the shooter
>(whether amateur or professional). In the hands of another person, another
>set of results will probably pop up.
I do not understand this point of view - and I think you have not read
very carefully what I have posted or written in the reviews (at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm ), or
have looked very carefully at the frame-grabs... I think
no one would wisely choose (or could miss, with a good
look...)
- a picture that is less sharp, when a sharper picture is
available (with no compensating drawbacks...)
- a picture that is consistently off-color and/or missing
subtlities of color, or reasonable accuracy of color,
when a picture with better color is available (with no
compensating drawbacks...)
- a picture that has obvious oversharpening artifacts,
when a smoother picture is available (with no
compensating drawbacks...)
- a picture that exhibits excessive stairstepping, both
along the usual near-horizontal lines and along the
less-usual near-vertical lines, and moire patterning,
when a smoother picture is available (with no
compensating drawbacks...)
- a camcorder that has less ability to shoot in low light
levels with good image quality, when a better
alternative is available (with no compensating
drawbacks...)
- a camcorder with more difficult manual focus and less
able AF, when a better alternative is available
(with no compensating drawbacks...)
- a camcorder with inferior sound capability, when
better sound is available (with no compensating
drawbacks...)
- and more......;-)
These are not "opinions" about characteristics - they
are easy to observe. To think that these noted defects
somehow go away or change with the camcorders in question
in the hands of other users is, well, odd...;-) These
are designed-in limitations - and while it is true that
a master photographer can make excellent photos with a
box Brownie (or a great videographer can shoot good
video with an inferior camera), knowing its limitations,
the point is, why would anyone choose these limitations
when it is not necessary to do so (and in the bargain
often pay as much or more for the "priviledge")?!
This is a mystery...;-) In choosing tools, one selects
the most versatile and characteristic-neutral ones
possible, so as not to need to compensate as much for
the shortcomings of the tools while working. Claiming
that these shortcomings in video cameras don't exist, or
are just my "opinion" is a very silly point of view,
in my opinion...;-)
>I work on footage from a particular videographer, who used both Canon
>XL1/XL1s and a Sony PD150 on the same shoots, and I could not tell the
>difference. When I remarked how well the footage matched, he simply said "I
>work each camera to produce the image I like". Wow, what a revelation! He
>worked the tools to get the results he wanted.
Yes. I own about 8 camcorders, and sometimes do this - but
generally it is not picture characteristics I'm working
around, it is size/weight. Given the choice of the most
versatile camera with the best-quality image under all
conditions, the choice is easy: the VX2000 picture in
stock form is neutral, sharp, good under a wide
variety of lighting and subject conditions, and it is
relatively free of detracting characteristics - *and* it
can be modified in apparent sharpness, saturation, color
bias, and exposure-bias to be what I want for special
uses/subjects. NOTE THIS LAST - both inherent high quality,
AND the ability to modify to taste the picture
characteristics (without damaging the picture by worsening
already bad characteristics) are important...
>That people go on about Sony being better (or Canon being better) amazes me.
>Both have their strong and weak points. Neither is clearly the better
>camera! In the right hands, both can produce excellent video images.
I agree with the last statement (see above), but why make
that task harder...?;-) As for the former statement,
well......;-)
>>My point: there are standards of quality
>>(and it is desireable to have these standards)
>Differences in "Qualities" are everywhere. In video's cousin - film -
>different stocks have varying characteristics (graininess, speed,
>chroma/luma rendition, etc)... and that goes for photography as well. Is
>there a standard?
Yes. *Except for special effect*, one generally chooses
the sharpest, finest-grain, most color-neutral, most
"normal"-contrast material one can use in a given light
level. If you do not understand this, then it is easy
to understand why you have missed the point about basic
tool quality and neutrality...
>Pros and enthusiasts tend to experiment with their equipment to get a feel
>for its qualities so they can work it to produce the results they find
>pleasing. With consumer full-auto camcorders (as well as pro cams),
>manufacturers work their cams to produce an all-around image with base
>characteristics they feel their customers will like. Are these
>characteristics the standards you talk about?
No (for the most part). Camcorder imaging-device design,
like lens design, is basically a large set of compromises
(otherwise the items would cost a fortune - and *still* be
a set of compromises [nothing is perfect]). There are
basic image characteristics common between film-photography,
motion-film, digital-still photography, and motion-video.
Film supplies the imaging "device" for some of these, making
the "design" of that imaging device a fairly easy matter of
choice. Lens design is a "can of worms", but one can assume
that the lenses provided for medium to high priced cameras
of all types are at least acceptable in performance under
a fairly wide range of conditions (there are differences,
important to some of us, but they tend to be minor compared
with differences among imaging devices [film or CCDs/DSPs]).
Film is a matter of easy choice; CCD/DSP characteristics are
mostly determined by the choice of camcorder/digital-still
camera; CCD/DSP compromises determine the balance of
characteristics that comprise the image quality, and some
of those compromises detract rather noticeably from the
final image. Ideally, one gets from the imaging device
and lens system images that are very sharp, very neutral
(accurate) in color characteristics, very good under a
wide range of lighting conditions, and quite free of
imaging defects (graininess, "haloed" contrasty edges,
blown-out highlights, black featureless shadows, low
brilliance, flare, ghosting, soft frame corners, uneven
illumination of the frame, negative-artifacting [like
stair-stepping, moire-patterning], compression effects
[edge irregularities, lack of smoothness in plain-tone
areas around contrasty edges, "mosquito" effects on fine
textures], bright-light "spill" into darker areas,
spurious colors in textured areas, color biases,
sharpness variations with color, and probably many more).
Beyond that "ideal", one can prefer the "look" of some
image defects (and get them using sometimes-available
camera controls, or by applying suitable filters in post),
but it would be hard to understand someone prefering
to have them, rather than not, and selecting a camcorder
for them, especially the more obnoxious ones (ones I
have tried to point out, but there appears to be
considerable resistence to the whole concept of even
recognizing that unpleasant picture characteristics
exist...;-). Money and design ability are also part of
the imaging compromise mix, as may be desires for
some "features", like having video cameras able to
shoot stills, or able to provide "PS" or "Frame" mode
motion-video. The bottom line is: some camcorders, having
fewer undesireable picture characteristics and more control
over some picture characteristics, are more versatile
(suited to a wider range of applications) and "able"
imagers. One can disagree over what set of characteristics
are more/less desireable than another, but they do exist
(not an opinion...;-), and the camcorders that provide
the fewest negative picture characteristics and the most
positive characteristics (all else being equal, which it
often isn't...;-) are generally the best image-makers
(an opinion...;-).