Hi--

You may be trying to glean info from the test images that is
beyond the standards of the test...

>The problem I have with most of these is that they only
have 12 bit converters on them. I work in the audio world
and we find that 16 bits is not enough. We use 24 bit converters
in most of our mix downs. What are the converters like
in the TRV-900?

I don't know - but the audio on all the camcorders is not up to
audiophile standards (but it is excellent compared with camcorders
of the past...). In most (all...), there is audible hiss and pickup
of camcorder motor noise, and often focus and zoom noise - and the
mics vary from good-sounding (but not flat) to horrid. I seem to
recall that the JVC uses a 14-bit converter for picture, but I have
not seen the picture from it yet.

>Have you looked at the JVC DV500 ?

No - it is too big and heavy (and no stabilizer) for my purposes,
but if the picture is noticeably better, I would be tempted.
BTW, the video producer who lent the Canon models exchanged the
first XL-1 for a second, then traded it in for a JVC - he is happier
with it (the XL-1 picture was not outstanding, and the manual focus
(and AF) and zoom controls were poor (and different between the two).
AE was also poor. I would rate the sound the best of the bunch,
the picture so-so, and controls poor - overall unacceptable for
me (I turned down a REALLY good price on the tested XL-1...).

>In reviewing your pictures I find three things.

>1) The outdoor picture with the TRV900 looks "nicer" as the
colors are richer, but may not be true to reality. The XL1 is
closer to the Beta SP though.

As is the untweaked VX-1000 - but I would not use the BetaSP
as a color reference (color is better [as is sharpness] in several
Mini-DV camcorders - but the BSP picture is free-er from digital
artifacts [it is smoother]).

>2) The XL1 seems to have the greatest amount of degrees of
contrast gradient across Peter's face of any of the camera's.
The SP photo of indoor Peter was not included in your study.
So this says to me that I will have problems with contrast when
shooting indoors with all but the XL1. This is not unlike reviewing
a scanner. With the cheaper scanners you have to work your ass
off to get the picture to be graduated in contrast.

Yes. It would have been a better test for this if I had carefully
matched positions and angles of me and Peter. I was looking for
AWB differences, edge effects from oversharpening, and vertical
stairstepping (these all vary in these), but contrast is also
of interest. From what I have seen, the JVC in stock set-up is
quite contrasty, with noticeable edge effects - but it provides
a LOT of set-up control...

>3) The corners of the XL1 are darker and do not show an even
gradient across the picture. The TRV900 does not do this, but
it is very bad on the degrees of gradient in contrast on Peter's indoor
face.

Yes - though a bit of lighting can correct this - and the higher
contrast makes the image look sharper. Look also at the street scenes
for sharpness and contrast differences.

>One more question... in this photo of Peter with the XL1,
http//www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/camcorders/xl-1/pi-xl1.jpg
I see jpg compression on his cheeks and around the photo, is this the
camera or is this in the photo capture or photo compression for
the web?
James Moss

I don't know - but all the images got identical compression, and
the XL-1 when it first came out had a problem with banding of
gradients. Now that you mention it, it looks like the banding is muted,
but still there! According to Canon, increasing the gain level
suppresses this effect. (But I hate the color balance - and the edge
effect makes focus-through really ugly with this camcorder [you can
guess I didn't like the XL-1 much...;-]).
BTW, you may want to grab all the frames of interest as BMP or TIF
files, and adjust brightness in an editor to better match up the
images (not entirely without pitfalls...;-) and see what results...
(With a little brightening, you may even like the EZ30U...;-)
Overall, I think if price/size/weight/stabilizer are not issues, I
would look at the JVC; if they are, I would look at the TRV-900,
VX-1000, and EZ30U (even with its many shortcomings in controls,
low-light ability, and lack of stabilizer - but the picture and
sound are good straight-up, without accessories or too much
tweaking); if the inherent Mini-DV artifacts are bothersome, an
analogue or less compressed DV solution may be in order (I was
surprised recently by a Sony TR-700 Hi-8 [one wonders about
the VX-3 or high-end Hi-8...] - the color wasn't quite as good,
but the picture was smoother and almost as sharp [kinda like why
BetaSP is still liked...;-], though dropout problems then return,
as do moderate generation losses when editing...). Ah, well...