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.

>I am working on films that are to be sold as CDs are sold to fans
>at gigs or through our CD distributors. We play bluegrass and
>have a demand for something like this. I would want to be sure
>that I could deliver good quality footage to them though. I am
>sensitive to price too. I was hoping that the XL1 would be as
>high in price as I would have to go. There are other things to
>pay for too, like a Raptor board, a 80 gig hard drive, a great tripod
>and fluid head, and most likely a second lens... maybe.
>I cannot not forget some lighting either. I want to edit in Adobe
>Premiere.

Ah - it helps to know the end result...;-)
OK, I assume you are supplying VHS tape copies, and not video on
CD (horrid-horrid-horrid quality instead of just horrid quality...).
My friends at the local production house insist that the very best
quality original is necessary for CD's - which I'm not sure I go
along with, given the quality loss, but I get the concept from
film/lens tests... Any of the camcorders in the test (yes, ANY - I am
now editing a video that includes footage from the TRV-9 in color,
shot in low light [the worst camcorder, under the worst conditions
for it], and with tweaking in editing, the footage mixes in just
fine with the EZ30U footage [and I have mixed it in with VX-1000
footage in the past]) will work, some better than others, but I
would not worry too much about the details!
As to editing, we build editing computers. Quick advice have at
least three separate HD's in the computer (C, plus at least one
[preferably two] source-footage drives, plus one dedicated to the preview
files [if you do a lot of picture correction in the edits, though
you can make AVI files of these parts, put them on the source drives,
replace the footage in the Premiere project with these - I'm doing
this in the current project]) and provide for two monitors (Premiere
is really awkward to use on one monitor - add at least a 15" to a
17", though dual 17" monitors works well [and better than a single
19-21", since you need lotsa horizontal work space]).
I have a great tripod I may part with... (I prefer hand-held, and
it is too heavy for my type of work), about $600 for an older mid-line
Cartoni.

>I don't want trashy looking footage is all. I know a film maker
>named Victor, who has used a lot of different video cams in his
>movie production and he liked the TRV900 a lot. He also liked
>the VX1000, and didn't care for the XL1.. He doesn't understand
>the issues with the A/D converters though.

They are unlikely to be different in any of the camcorders for
sound, though all but the VX-1000 supposedly record in 16-bit mode
(and, except for a compatibility issue with Premiere 4.2 [not 5.1],
there have been no issues with the sound quality with the VX-1000).
If you are doing mixing of music in post, I would consider an additional
digital recorder - and none of the camcorders ['cept maybe the XL-1
and the JVC] has line-level input - all are mic-level... Also,
Premiere mixes at 16-bit. I suspect that from VHS and even "good"
playback gear, you will hear at best only subtle differences, and
only if you know the mix well... Mini-DV I consider a VERY high quality
"sketch pad" medium - good enough for better-quality work than was
possible for under 1/2 million dollars about 4 years ago (and you
can do it on your desktop!!!), but short of the very best (still
WAY up there in price!) - a VERY reasonable compromise! And the
limiter is still the 240-line res. VHS dupe - the DV original still
looks a lot better, but the (good) VHS dupe isn't bad at all...
(I'm still eager for DVD dupes to be practical, but by then HDTV
will wipe all these efforts out, alas...)

>I have been using a Beta SP for some shoots and other folks
>DV's for others up until now. With my "controlled" shoots
>of musicians, I use a multi track that is 16 bit either ADAT or DR16,
>and run a SMPTE signal to both a channel on the video camera
>and to the multi track. This allows the DR16 to sync to the SMPTE
>in post. The final mix is done on CD's to a 24 bit DAT machine.
>24 bit is used as it allows more detail at the lower volume level signals.
>This means reverb and ambiance sound real and does not drop off
>as it fades out.

Excellent for CD output, but on video tape...
BTW, one of the joys of (digital) Mini-DV is that there are no
synch issues - a wild track made on a digital device will (if
played back on the same device) stay in synch over long periods
with the DV picture. Best proceed as above (but without the active
camera synch.), and drop the track into Premiere as a WAV file,
mute the original camera track, but keep it for visual synching
with the imported WAV. In 1/2 hour, you may be off a couple of
frames, but resynching is easy (you may see more difference in
synch. from distance of the camera mic to sound source than
from synch. slip with digital...).

>For video this does not matter if you are playing back in a 4 inch
>TV speaker, but this is the age of the internet and a lot of people
>play back through their stereo systems.

Most of which, alas, are neither very good, or properly set up...;-)
(I'm a recovering audiomaniac - see the "audio" section at the bottom
of the first index on my web page - then have a good laugh in the
"MIDI" section...! ;-) My inclination would be to make it as good as
you can using a reasonable level of resources, and accept the result...

>> >Have you looked at the JVC DV500 ?
>>
>> No - it is too big and heavy (and no stabilizer)

>oh.. that sucks

BTW, the WA lens for the XL-1 also has no stabilizer, is expensive,
and the very little footage I've seen shot with it didn't look
impressive... And the XL-1 is no light-weight, and has no comfortable
shoulder pad... (Dump, dump, dump on that XL-1!!! ;-)

>> 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.

>Also, in your comparison to Peter's camera, yours shows the
>sky as blue, and Peter's is white or gray and washed out.

Peter's camera in AWB has more neutral color than mine - mine
is bluer... (also, the day I made that comparison had more changeable
weather - don't read too much into these comparisons...;-).

>> The XL1 is
>> closer to the Beta SP though.
>
>Yeah..
>
>> 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

>Really? Wow!

The color of the original BSP is kinda washed out - I generally
boost the color in the VX-1000 (which looks surprisingly similar
to the BSP - and people claim good intermixability between VX-1000
and BSP footage), the TRV-900 is already boosted, the EZ30U is
only slighty boosted (but s-o-o-o neutral...! ;-), and the
one-chippers are somewhat weak in at least some colors (though
mostly this is correctable in editing).

>> - but the BSP picture is free-er from digital
>> artifacts [it is smoother]).

>What do you mean? How would I notice these digital artifacts?

Yes - once you see them, they are hard not to notice. Two kinds
(other than the banding of gradients that you noticed, though
this is less noticeable on TV - as I thought about it, I
remembered seeing seriously banded skies on the non-interlaced
computer monitor - but the same images on TV were smooth) small
detail "buzzing"; and straight line "stairstepping" (all are about
the same in rendering moving off-horizontal lines with big
stairsteps [look at the wires in the outdoor scenes], but some
also stairstep near vertical lines, making the image very "busy"
looking... [the worst with this were the GL-1 and the PC-1, though
the EZ30U and TRV-900 also showed a bit of this]).

>> >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...;-]).
>
>yeah, well..
>
>>
>> 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,
>
>Have you looked at the VX2000 yet?
James Moss

No, but I will when I can borrow one - it looks like the picture
will be quite different, for better or for worse (technically
better images don't necessarily look better...). Hate those
memory sticks, etc. - Sony should give up on trying to make
video cameras shoot stills, though most people want the feature
until they try it and see how bad it is! Bleah!

>> 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...

If you have enough light, the 30U makes nice images...;-)
If you shoot multi-camera, you may be able to get away with one
of the better consumer Hi-8 camcorders (naw! ;-) to cover the
dropouts (less "stairstepping", but worse color and sharpness).
For what you want, especially if tripod-mounted, and considering
price, it is still hard to beat the VX-1000 (good image in good
light, good VF for manual focus - but as with most others, hard to
use zoom control [30U better?], but a $400 handle Lanc gadget
may solve that...).
Dunno.
Let me know what you do, and send me a CD or video - I like
bluegrass...;-) (BTW, check out the "Music Scene" section under
"What to See and Do" on the www.visitithaca.com site...;-)