On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 11:57:37 -0800, Z_amatk
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 02:57:44 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:22:38 -0700, Z_amatk
>>>>I guess if you prefer a "look" or effect, instead of
>>>>accuracy, well, then.........;-)
>>>That's the thing. Some people prefer the look of the XL1 to the VX2000
>>>or whatever other camera. That's most likely why the purchased it. If
>>>they did so on other peoples opinions then well... I feel for em.
>>>
>>>Point is it's all opinion regardless of tests/ comparisions/ etc. etc.
>>>it's one persons opinion over another--doesn't mean it's "right"
>>>becuase an opinion is just that, an opinion.
>>Well, yes, of course...! ;-)
>>But how limiting would be the "choice" of, say, a camera
>>capable of only B&W... The point is: better to choose
>>a camera demonstrably better at rendering detail, doing
>>it with minimal artifacting, and with the most neutral and
>>accurate color (but perhaps these are subtlies that lie
>>within the region of "preference"...?;-) - and from there
>>one can do anything in post to get the desired "look". To
>>choose a limiting camera when good (and often cheaper, etc.)
>>alternatives exist seems kinda, well, odd to me...;-)
>>David Ruether
>That's according to your findings. I'm sure there are plenty of other
>"tests" that show different findings.
No, actually, they all tend to agree on the above...
Things like resolution, oversharpening effects, color
problems, etc. are generally design issues, and are easily
seen and agreed upon. It may be that those who notice
these subtle differences may prefer the errors, but they
*are* there, and some of us do care (not that even the
best camcorders are perfect [far from it] - but they are
at least a bit closer to perfection...;-).
>There's always someone else with another reason why you should buy
>this camera or that. It seems, in my experience usually, that most
>people want to justify their purchase so they slam other cameras
>manufactureres etc. But heck if there was only one "right" answer or
>definative "test" then logically none of these other camera companies
>would be in business if they were THAT inferior to one another.
They aren't. There are subtle differences that are important
to some of us. Kinda like a "why would anyone pay more for
lower performance?" sort of thing...;-) For some, though,
other features may exist that outweigh the basic picture
quality (hard as that is for me to understand...!;-).
(BTW, those who justify their purchases by means of
unsupported opinions do tend to be the Canon owners...;-)
As I have pointed out before, I have owned Canon gear, and
I don't care what the label is on the side of the camera - I
want the best picture and sound for the money, and that,
right now, tends to be supplied by Sony... I supplied the
comparison reviews at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
after comparing several camcorders of several brands
for my own interest - and the results seemed worth
publishing on my web page. Others appear to have found
it useful, and fairly unbiased... As a result of this
experience I consider myself reasonably qualified to jump
in with an opinion when the common questions arises here
about the camcorders covered in the reviews or since tried
out by me - and I generally avoid responding when I have
no first-hand (or at least solid second hand), knowledge
to base my response on. If you read my reviews and posts,
I think you will find I try to support what I say, and not
just repeat opinions, rumors, or biases... Heck, for
particular uses, I even sometimes recommend Cannon...!;-)
>I've used the XL1, the JVC 500, the VX2000 and the TRV900 among other
>betacams and I will say that there are differences for all of these,
>(no comparison to the beta cams) but between the cameras you mentioned
>I personally can't see much of a difference. I DO know that the XL-1
>has the best sounding audio--to me, but that's my opinion.
If you read my reviews, you will find that I agree with you
about the audio. But I come from a photo background (one
where I was trying to squeeze the best possible image
quality from 35mm gear), and picture quality differences are
important to me. Again, why choose a device that limits the
quality of your productions relative to a different device,
especially if the cost of the better device is nearly the
same or lower...? ;-)
>We have cut
>together video from the JVC with the TRV900 and I would be very hard
>pressed to tell the difference. Also from the VX2000 to the 900 and
>same scenario. The XL1 image is a bit warmer than the Sonys, but
>that's about all I've ever noticed.
Then you are not aware of the subtlities...
Much like someone saying, "I can't hear the difference
between a Bose table radio and a (good...;-) $10,000
stereo system" - without experience with the differences,
they may appear overly subtle to worry about, or even
non-existent. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist,
or are "just someone's opinion". Of course, buy whatever
"rings your bells", but don't then dismiss what someone
else who is into the differences points out...
>If we compared frame by frame etc etc, yes I'm sure we could see the
>difference, but ultimately you're talking about cameras that are all
>pretty capable and in the end the person who buys it would be someone
>who "prefers the look" to one over the other. Or maybe they prefer the
>construction, etc. etc. and this list goes on.
All true, except that the differences are not just apparent
"frame-by-frame" - in fact, they are often *more* apparent
in the motion-video (some nasty artifacting types are most
evident in motion, not in frame-grabs...). I prefer the
sharpest, lowest artifacted, cleanest, most neutral-colored
image possible...
Odd, huh? ;-)