Hi--

> 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.


These settings are roughly the same ones I use when I shoot
with our firm's VX2000. I am also well versed in adjusting Sony
cameras for various lighting conditions and focal requirements,
however, most of my duties involve the editing of footage shot
by others.

Then you have access to color controls while editing...
I would prefer to start with technically-better footage,
though bland, and be able to apply color-shifts, saturation-boosts,
etc. without running into limitations in the original footage
that preclude these, then get "pre-hyped" footage I could not
adequately correct or modify...


> 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...;-)
>
> 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...;-).

I am only relaying the comments made by hundreds of our customers,
mostly European journalists trying to sell their work to the major
U.S. media outlets, and they overwhelmingly say that it's easier to
sell "quick-draw" footage shot on an MX300 than footage from a Sony.

Then give them feedback on how to use those simple "custom presets"
on the VX2000...;-)

I have to agree from my experiences in the editing suite, the image
is just "fuller" and more "pleasant" without having to adjust the
camera during quickly changing conditions. Our Sony by nature, makes
"cooler" temperature, grey-green images unless you fuss with the
settings repeatedly, than you can massage it into giving "neutral"
color representation, probably more correct than the Panasonic's
auto settings.

I find this hard to believe... It does take some experience to settle
on one or two set-ups, but from there, it is easy (and easily shifted
in post, if not satisfactory, since the VX2000 image presents few
"roadblocks" to doing this...).


Again, I'd like to see an objective series of tests for "novice"
mode or "quick-draw" conditions, no adjustments allowed for changing
conditions once initial set-up is done.

Why? This is like saying, lets check the performance of two
cars, a Chevy Lumina and a Corvette - but let's use only
standard-grade gas in both, since that's what the "average
Joe" would want to do..., or, let's limit both cars to
first gear. It's a silly test.


The level of passion on this issue reminds me of my high school days,
When you were either a Ford man OR a Chevy man, and no amount of
reason could get either side to accept the other side as being just as
valid as their own.

I try to avoid this (see my reviews..., though I express more
definite preferences in my NG comments [why not support the
better over the inferior???;-]), but I see it often among Canon
and Mac owners (but virtually never among Panasonic owners...;-).

If the goal is to make the highest quality vacation
video images without fussing with the camera or having the greatest
success selling "quick-draw" footage, perhaps we should go with what
the clients buy when they have a choice between several sellers, not
with what the image connoisseurs say is the best, even if perhaps it
is a more accurate representation of the actual scene being shot.

Yes, if you want - I'm not stopping anyone from choosing anything
and using it. But why stop pointing out that one is better than the
other, especially when most are in agreement on this, and solid reasons
are given for the choice? To do otherwise would put me on the
level of movie critics (or magazine reviewers) who "like" everything,
and whose comments are then worthless except as advertising
accompaniment.
If you "go with the flow" against your better knowledge, you do no
service
to anyone... This reminds me of my photo days, when the "great" Fuji
vs. Kodak battles raged among users of slide film. The Fuji adherents
noted that editors bought more Fuji 50 and Fuji 100 slides than
Kodachrome,
though the 100 almost invariably reproduced magenta, since K was the
reproduction set-up standard (the uninformed art-directors didn't
understand this, and went for the "pop" of the Fuji, though the
Kodak materials at the time reproduced better). Most just gave in,
as did I, eventually, and we even used the totally "incorrect" Velvia
when it came out, since it REALLY popped, with its candy-colors.
Fortunately, there are now materials that are more accurate than any
of the earlier ones, and one can shoot film that is good with a wider
range of lighting/subject-types - and it therefore looks good enough to
also sell easily (and the art-directors are better-informed...;-).
In audio, the quest for "accuracy" appears to have been given up,
and "hype" is "in" - people pay thousands for 10-watt single-ended
amps with very high distortion, 'cuz they like the sound of the
distortion (sound familiar...? ;-) - but this does not make these amps
superior for anyone seeking honest music reproduction...


No disrespect intended. I still think your analysis of the images on
the Japanese web site were right on the money from a technical
standpoint.

Sincerely,

Edward Edens Bon & Ed

You raise interesting issues, but I have considered them before.
I'm not against "hype" in the final image, and I often "push"
the image in post to its limits, when appropriate, but I am against
being limited/directed in what I shoot by the lack of neutrality
and technical excellence imposed by my gear/materials - I think
it is best to use the most neutral gear/materials for acquisition,
then make choices for presentation later, rather than having my
gear/materials "color" all my output in advance...
To do otherwise is to limit oneself by throwing out all standards
of judgement regarding selection of gear and materials (not that one
cannot produce good audio/video/photography with flawed gear/materials,
but it is just harder {and, of course, there is no perfect
gear/materials - but they do vary in quality, and selections can be
made based on the level of quality...]).