On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:56:34 -0700, "E.B." wrote:

>> Not being a believer in messin' up motion-video by
>> using "frame" or "PS" mode, this is not an issue for me.

>Well, as a filmmaker coming from the film world I find video "messed up"
>already. Interlacing artifacts are the most annoying, and the video look of
>motion is terrible.

There are no interlacing artifacts with video viewed on most
TV's - that's the point...! ;-) Video is an interlaced
medium at present, and shooting otherwise does introduce
artifacts with motion, familiar in film where any fast
pan is likely to produce very unpleasant effects...
Video can remain sharp and smooth during motion, a
distinct advantage, I think, and one that it is silly
to disgard...

>I think the XL1 frame mode handles motion very well. The Sonys (whatever
>model) shows more strobing on motion. Don't know why, but I understand why
>you don't want to use that on your Sony camera. It sucks.

Yes. As I have pointed out, Sony uses PS to optimize
stills shot in still-mode; the use of PS-mode for
motion-video produces unacceptable artifacting. The Canons
are better at this, but still reduce resolution of the image
with motion relative to shooting interlaced (and also, I
hear, they even reduce resolution when there is no
motion - to me, this is unacceptable given the marginal
resolution of video even with the best gear...).

>> why duplicate in video
>> a failing of film?

>Film is the standard that video is only just now starting to approach. If
>you prefer the video look, that's fine. I don't mind. I'm not losing any
>sleep over it.

Likewise - but why compromise the quality of a very
different medium (with its own inherent advantages
over film), to simulate badly a deficiency of
film in order to badly approximate the look of
another medium? ;-) It is like putting "canvass texture"
on photographs - kinda silly, really...;-) Film is
film; video is video - enjoy and use the strengths
of each...