On 12 Aug 2001 00:03:07 -0700, fellini911@yahoo.com (Erick) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:
<3b767b8d.2076365@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
>> On 10 Aug 2001 21:58:29 -0700, fellini911@yahoo.com (Erick)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thanks for the info, Joe. I didn't want to get into another Sony vs.
>> >Canon debate (I've read hundreds of them here) I just want to see for
>> >myself the differance in quality vs. just reading about it. I've shot
>> >tons of footage on the PD150 and really like it, I just have to get my
>> >hands on an XL1 (or XL1S) as well as that 16:9 JVC DV700 (yes I know
>> >it's 10G more but if it's 10G better, than it may be worth it).

>> Most people prefer the PD150 picture compared with either
>> the XL-1 or PD100; the PD150 has XLRs, almost "infinitely"
>> better lens-controls/finder(s)/power-solutions/AF/MF/AE/ME
>> compared with the XL-1 - so, why the interest in it?
>> (I suspect that Canon's superb advertising/image-building
>> efforts, not the reality of what the camera is/provides,
>> may be the cause...?;-)

>Gotta admit, I did love playing with the XL-1 at NAB this year. And I
>have a ton of nice Canon lense that would be great to use on the it...

The XL-1 is fun to look at, and many of its controls are
nicely-placed (but some are not, or do not operate well,
like the lens controls... - and the XL-1 can be a pain
[literally...;-] to operate for very long...). As for using Canon 35mm lenses on it, multiply the FL by about
7.2 to
get the equivalent 35mm FLs - great for long-lens work
[though results will not likely be as sharp as with lenses
designed for the much smaller format], but useless for
WA, alas...).

> What I would love is a tape comparing several different cameras
>footage. I asked B&H and they don't sell anything like that.

My reviews have comparative frame-grabs, with descriptions
of the motion-video characteristics (and sound characteristics), admittedly not as good as first-hand viewing
of comparative footage - but I offered that on CD,
uncompressed, in Raptor DV-AVI format when I first wrote the
reviews, with no takers...;-) The reviews are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm

>But I
>think when it comes down to it, I'll get the PD150 over the XL-1. IS
>the image differance between say the 150 and the DSR-500 that much
>noticable? I know the 500 records at a much higher line count (800)
>but they both output the same 525 lines (or is the 150 only 500 - then
>again I would get a PAL so it would be 625). I'm assuming the quality
>would be obvious if you record that much more info... A friend of mine
>is trying to convice me that the average viewer couldn't tell the
>differance.

Don't confuse resolution-types (one could say that the
PD150 shoots 720 lines...;-). The differences are ones
not of ultimate resolution (limited by the format to
540 lines horizontal (NTSC), but other factors, like
tonality, relative freedom from artifacting, color
purity and freedom from blooming, low-light reach and
quality, the level of control over picture parameters, etc.
Basically, the VX-2000/PD150 picture is close to the limits
for the format in sharpness, and very good in other
characteristics but short the very best possible for
the format - and this high quality is in a small, "cheap"
package more suited for auto-control use (excellent),
than manual. The bigger shoulder-mount cameras (JVC
and up) are more suited for traditional modes of operation,
and permit more and better manual control during operation.
The picture can look considerably different, though not
always better...