??????????????
The GL-1/XL-1 is the worst possible solution - you get
both "flicker" *and* lower resolution...! Just don't use
PS mode, for best possible results for TV-viewing;
deinterlace the results, for computer viewing...

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 16:16:00 GMT, "Lr" wrote:

>I get the drift now. My best world would be to have a Canon Gl-1
>also....Maybe down the line I can afford a GL-1 or Xl-1
>
>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3d4a701a.7327240@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>>
>> In addition to the usual "flickering" you get with
>> PS-mode video with motion (and the lowered resolution
>> with Canon 3-chippers...), which I'm mystified why
>> some people appear to like, the VX2000 PS-mode is
>> optimized for stills only, and looks even worse
>> used for motion video than usual...
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:55:08 GMT, "Rick Popko"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I think Progressive scan makes your video more film-like. It also helps
>when
>> >you just want to pull a single frame out of your video. Now I could be
>> >mistaken here, but I thought the VX2000 only did 15fps progressive.
>> >Television broadcast is 29.97. If you try to broadcast a 15fps tape, it's
>> >going to strobe like heck and give people headaches. The GL-1 camcorder
>from
>> >Canon has 30fps progressive that I think looks pretty good.
>> >-Rick
>>
>> >"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>> >news:3d42fba7.3751147@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:30:32 GMT, "Lr"
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >My Sony VX-2000 has progressive scan, does this make my video sharper?
>>
>> >> No, but it does make the motion-video pretty much
>> >> unwatchable on TV - the Sony PS-mode optimizes the
>> >> image for stills (only...).
>> >> David Ruether