On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 22:09:23 GMT, "Jim Harvey"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3c7d3a9d.26256232@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>...snip...
>> Then you have not found my comparative reviews, at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> For a price close to the VX2000 and considerably more
>> than the TRV900, its picture and sound are generally
>> inferior to either - it is the least desirable of
>> the available 3-chip Mini-DV camcorders in terms of
>> overall image and sound quality, at a premium price...
>I have to disagree strongly here. I think that one of the biggest problems
>with all these "Mine is better than yours" arguments is that people don't
>spend enough time to understand and LEARN how to use the cmaeras that they
>own. I read your comparison quite a while ago and found it interesting, but
>not really the final word. You can't just take a handful of different
>cameras, shoot some footage with them and say "well, this one looks better
>than that one at this setting." The whole idea of taking pictures is to use
>the equipment you have to the fullest of its ability (and yours).
You are describing two distinctly different issues:
the inherent characteristics of the gear, and the
process of optimizing performance with given
characteristics. This is pointless. If camera "A"
has a sharper, more neutral-color picture, with fewer
negative artifacts, under a wider range of shooting
conditions than camera "B", one can reasonably conclude
that camera "A" has a better picture than "B" (though
likely not perfect). The consequence of this is that
it is likely the user must struggle less hard to get
good results with camera "A" than with camera "B".
This becomes especially important as the price
differences narrow between the two cameras...
Of course, given an experienced operator with camera
"B" vs. an inexperienced operator with camera "A",
it is quite possible the footage from "B" will
look better than "A" in *some* situations (though it
will not remove all the more obvious picture defects
of "B's" picture...) - but this is *not* the issue.
Which camera has the best picture is; the other issue
you raise is irrelevant to that issue.
>The GL-1 isn't the best camera on the planet, Neither is the Sony or the
>Panasonic or any other 1/4" chippers,
The VX2000 is 1/3"...
>however, if you LEARN the camera
>(there's that word again) and how to get the look you are striving for, then
>you can easily create wonderful footage that will stand up against critical
>scrutiny.
I never said otherwise... But it is easier to do this
with the camera that inherently produces better-quality
images...
>NO, it won't look like Panavision, but I have had editors look at
>well made GL-1 footage and marvel at the quality. The quality came from
>spending TIME getting adjustments and settings to work with the subject
>matter. In other words, the person wielding the GL-1 knew what they were
>doing.
Quite possible, but this is irrelevant to the basic premise...
>You can hand a Panaflex to someone, that doesn't make them a Cameraman. Drop
>an $80,000.00 Sony into a beginner's hand and tell me that they are going to
>shoot video ready for broadcast, it just isn't going to happen.
Of course, but this, again, means little in terms of the
question, "Does camera 'A' produce a better picture under
a wider range of conditions than does camera 'B'?" If so,
or not, is itself useful information (and what I tried to
provide), and has NOTHING to do with the user's skill...
>There is a snobbery in this field that proclaims that if it isn't high end,
>it isn't worth looking at. This is such a small viewpoint that I am
>surprised more people don't just give up with all the negativity floating
>around. Taking a frame grab from any camera, and just throwing it up on the
>web does little to show the comparitive quality of any of the cameras that
>you reviewed. I'd wager too, that in the hands of a skilled operator (and no
>disrespect aimed at you), the cameras that you reviewed could show exquisite
>video grabs.
This is nonsense, unless you are accusing me of "stacking"
the results... There are inherent differences in how the
various models produce images, and those do contribute
to differences in the overall quality of the images
produced. To think otherwise (especially without
personal careful comparison) is untenable.
>Plus we are all subjective in our likes. The Sony shifts one
>way and the Canon Shifts another. To you prefer Warm Video or cooler ? Some
>folks hit the zoom knob on the GL-1 with their knuckles and then damn the
>whole camera for poor ergonomics. Just plain silly.
I have covered all these issues at length and repeatedly
in posts on these NGs for a few years now... If you really
believe that standards "are in the eye of the beholder",
then I think you can dismiss all rational observation and
comparison, and we are back in the "Dark Ages"...;-)
>No matter WHAT camera you wind up with, the ultimate responsibility is for
>YOU to learn how to operate it. Not just how to turn it on and WB, but
>UNDERSTAND what the camera is capable of producing and working within that
>envelope.
Of course - but this is a different issue from the basic
question...