On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:48:57 GMT, "Jim Harvey" wrote:

>In the interest of saving bandwidth, I'll snip all the prior repartee,
>anyone interested can just scroll up to the thread.
>
>I hate to point this out, but actually yes, it IS all in the eye of the
>beholder. I hate to be such a negative fellow, but if you want to spend your
>time analyzing waveforms and chroma values then that's fine. But people have
>different tastes and the "look" of a particular piece of video is what
>matters most. If you please your audience, then it really doesn't matter if
>you have 450 lines or 500 lines. Unless you are constrained by the need for
>a particular quality of resolution then if the project is pleasing to those
>who view it ( and I hate to tell you this, but 99% of the people who view a
>video wouldn't know the difference anyway) then the project is a success.

[I caught this before it went out in time to add this, but after
my second post {below} went out. The Sony vs. Canon"
threads got confused {'cuz you failed to include any part
of the original post you were responding to}, and I'm
partly responding to usimilar issues in another thread. In
the below, you can *sometimes* substitute "GL-1" for "XL-1"
and "TRV900" for "VX2000/PD150", but it still works...;-]

You are quite correct in the second part of the above
(but we know better, right, and "should" provide the
best product, rather than "good enough"...?;-) You did
misunderstand on the first part - I *do not* look at test
gear to judge image quality; I look at the *images* made by
the gear. Some gear produces higher image quality that other
gear does. While you may claim that this is "all in the eye
of the beholder" (and you are partly right, it does call for
subjective judgements for part of the evaluation), most
experienced viewers do agree (even XL-1 owners...;-) that
the VX2000/PD150 image is in fact technically superior
to that of the Canon (and it can be modified in meaningful
ways, without reducing its technical superiority, unlike
with the XL-1[s], allowing "seasoning to taste"). If you
are inexperienced in looking at images to judge quality
issues, I offer this excerpt from an earlier post of mine:
"In addition to good image sharpness (with minimal
oversharpening "halos" along contrasty edges), good color
(neutral balance, good saturation and purity, and freedom
from spurious color in textured areas), good picture
contrast and brilliance (with "open", detailed shadow areas
and highlights that contain detail instead of being just
white, but with good, clean, neutral blacks and whites), I
also want image "quietness" with motion (the relative
absence of spurious image motion effects that are not part
of the subject motion - though it appears impossible to
expect the complete absence of near-horizontal-line
stairstepping in video) in a good video image. With one-chip
Mini-DV camcorders, there is a trade-off between resolution
and spurious (and very unpleasant and distracting) motion
effects; with the 3-chip camcorders, these effects vary
from barely acceptable (but much better than with the
megapixel one-chippers), to fairly acceptable (but worse
than with the best analogue cameras)."
The Canon picture simply fails on many of these standards
relative to the Sony. The failures are not "night and day"
evident to the casual viewer (and the inexperienced viewer
often actually prefers orange-bias, too-high contrast,
oversharpening, and other picture faults...;-), but in sum,
they are important if one is choosing the better image
quality (which can then be modified to taste). Best is
starting with gear that offers the least limitations to
shooting ease and style, and with the fewest "biases"
to overcome built into its image characteristics...

>There are zealots on both sides of the equation, no amount of technical
>information will change anyone's mind.If you are pleased with your results,
>and your audience enjoys it, then all else is moot.

Of course. But wouldn't you rather use gear that has
inherent technical superiority, especially if it
cost less, and was easier to use...? ;-)
That is essentially what the original poster was
after, I suspect, with his question - and this
question does have a real and supportable answer,
regardless of how much some XL-1 owners may not
like that answer...;-)

>And hey, not all posts that disagree with you are attacks, your
>contributions are valued by some and not by others, that's the way the world
>works. If you can't have a disagreement then there is little point for any
>discussion at all.

Of course...! ;-) Why would you say that? It's "circular"...
You are saying by entering a discussion of a disagreement
I am considering the opposing view as an attack, which
I shouldn't do, and therefore should not respond in the
discussion? This makes no sense, except in the context of,
"if you can't argue facts, argue style"...;-) As others
have noted, the "Canon-lovers" do tend to go further
afield in their methods of arguement than their calmer,
more logical, more direct opponents - and then often
accuse their opponents of doing just that...!;-)
Most strange...;-)

>So quit being so damn cranky.

I don't think I was being "cranky" - I was pointing out a
logical error I believed you had made, summed up in this
quote from my response, "You are describing two distinctly
different issues [as one]: the inherent characteristics of
the gear, and the process of optimizing performance with
given characteristics." You had improperly combined these,
confusing the issues involved. I think I was rather
polite and straight-forward in the manner I pointed
this out... (with no insults, personal attacks,
"SHOUTING", etc.). If you think I was "cranky" in the
earlier post, you have not yet seen the "cranky" posts
that sometimes occur in these NGs! ;-)

But, to clear the air (if this is possible...;-) - both
the XL-1 and VX2000/PD150 are useable cameras, both have
their faults and unique virtues. And, I think this
original question and my response to it still sum up
pretty well the issues involved, even after all the
subsequent discussion:

"On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 00:41:34 GMT, "robbie" wrote:

>Which is better? Why?

With no further qualification, I would say, "PD150"
(better picture, greater low-light range, better lens
controls, much better auto-controls, more useable
picture controls, longer run-time on cheap/light
batteries, lighter/smaller/easier-to-pack, cheaper
[for basic camera-lens, with good WA solutions, and
also for "well-equipped"]). Sound quality/capability
is about the same on both. The XL-1 offers interchangeable
lenses, mostly an advantage when used with the EOS adapter,
for fitting effectively VERY long lenses...
For very specific uses, the XL-1 may be the answer; for
most uses, for most people, the PD-150 is...
BTW, you can find more, under the video section of
"I babble", at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com."