Hi--

I have read many of your posts on the subject of camcorder image
quality and also checked out your web site. I consider you to be
one of the most qualified individuals to make judgments in regard
to the above mentioned subject and I agree with the comments you
made last month

David Ruether wrote

> it is obvious that the 300/3000 color balance is
> quite biased toward red (without corrections available
> in the camera controls); the 2000 balance is very slightly
> blue-green (with correctable balance, using the camera
> warm/cool bias control) -- the 3000 shows less fine
> detail in the bridge and building railings, signage, and
> textures in building and bridge sides -- the greens
> are noticeably inferior in the 3000 (the colors, in general,
> look "wrong", with excessive tinting - and most colors
> [even the reds, given the strong red bias] are surprisingly
> not "clean". Notice, also, the yellow smear into the sky in
> the 3000 image from the sign near the upper left edge, the
> lack of "firmness" in the building shapes, and the
> oversharpening outlines visible at building/sky
> intersections, and especially in the top and bottom edges
> in the grey panel behind the Coca Cola sign compared with
> the VX2000 image...


However, may I ask you consider the following

The classic mistaken assumption of many highly technically
educated individuals is that a greater level of technical
control is always "better". Like saying that a Formula-1 car
is a greater feat of engineering than the top of the line
Mercedes Benz. The above statement is true, but it's not the
central issue if you just want to have the "highest quality"
drive to work on a daily basis.

In the same way I have found that when both cameras are used
in "complete novice" mode, which is to say that one just powers
up the camera, points at the subject, and presses the record
button, the MX3000 just creates images that 98% of viewers find
richer, more colorful, sharper, and strangely, more natural,
especially in matching proper skin tones & texture, than the
images from the VX2000 or ANY other consumer camcorder I've used.

Yes, the VX2000 can be adjusted to create better images in a
wider variety of situations, but if you just want to make the
highest quality vacation video images without compromising your
experiences by having to stop the party and make camera adjustments,
then the MX3000 makes images that are just "more beautiful" to the
vast majority of viewers. The PAL model MX300 is greatly favored
by European war journalists, currently working in Afghanistan, for
the same reasons, no time to do color adjustments or white balance
when there is gunfire coming in your direction.

I'm interested in your reactions to this conjecture. Perhaps there
could be a series of objective tests devised to measure differences
between images in the "novice" mode or "quick draw" war journalist
applications.

Sincerely,

Edward Edens Bon & Ed

Thanks for your comments.
I'm mystified by some of them.
The VX2000 can be set up about any way one wants, and does not
need to be changed again (for most things, I set AE-bias to -1,
sharpness to +1, and hue to +1, with DWB set whenever I'm
outside - inside, I generally go with AWB, with color-level at
-1, sharpness at +1, hue at 0 or -1, and AE-bias at 0, and
that's it...;-) This is about as hard as shifting manually a
3-speed automatic car into second on a hill if it is knocking.
Most people may not know enough to do that, but it **is** pretty
basic and easy...;-) Also, I don't know why, but people do seem
to like red-bias over neutral (look at the similar comments from
Canon owners about "color"...! ;-), but does this mean I should
recommend error over correct??? In the "old" days of Hi-Fi, it
was well known in sales that, put side-by-side, the neutral
speaker would lose out almost every time to the "boom-sizzle"
speaker - but that did not lead me to recommend these then,
either - and in time, a wider audience appreciated the better
speakers. Better to try to educate people, I think, in
video - "skin tone" does not need to be redish-pink, but can
look more "real", especially as people become more discerning,
and demand better color. For me, a camera that "messes up"
sky-color, grass-color, pavement-color, etc., and appears
incapable of rendering any pure color untinted by another is
to be avoided (especially if its image color-problems are
uncompensated for in better sharpness, smoothness, etc.), no
matter how appealing the "errors" are, to however many...;-)
BTW, I *do* use my cameras most of the time in "quick-draw"
auto mode (AF, AE, and when indoors, AWB), but enjoy the
advantages of having controls that can be "preset" to optimize
results - this appears to me to offer the best possible
compromise, especially when combined with basic picture
technical superiority... I often shoot hours of video at
events with available light, and with the VX2000 I have very
little footage that is spoiled due to technical problems - and
the skin-tone is excellent (being quite natural-looking, unless
the available lighting is just too weird...;-).
Sorry - but your comments remind me of the person who wrote me
soon after I wrote the first comparison review, saying "loved
your excellent reviews and agree with everything, except that
I can't recommend them to anyone until you change your
conclusions about the GL-1...". I still chuckle over this...;-)
And, I think time has proven me right on that one...;-)