On 23 May 2002 15:32:41 -0700, sklokazoid@hotmail.com (SKLOKAZOID) wrote:

>I am an asipiring filmmaker who has worked with both DV and film in
>the past and is now looking to get a new "toy" to persue my future
>projects with. What I am mainly concerned about is image resolution
>and its eventual transfer to 35mm film, should I ever make a project
>that would be worthy to put on a reel.

[insert a kinder, gentler version of BD's response, above,
here...;-]

>* In looking at the options in my price range (around $2500), I've
>narrowed it down to the Canon GL1, the Sony VX2000, and the Sony
>TRV900. I just want to be sure I'm looking in the right direction.
>Am I missing any other options? :)

There are a couple of Panasonic models, but...
(See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,
and: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm)

>* From everything I've seen, it appears as though the VX2000 is what
>I'm looking for. The images I've seen captured from it appear to
>capture the finer edges of an image and have better textures than that
>of the GL1. I've worked with the GL1 in the past and I had a pretty
>good experience with it, but that's the only DV cam I've worked with.
>When put side-by-side, GL1's images appear to be slightly more blurry.

And with more negative picture artifacting (stair-stepping
and oversharpening), excessive contrast, and less low-light
range in addition to the lower resolution that you have
noticed... And then, there's the various color issues...;-)
(See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm)

>* The only features that really matter to me are 16:9 mode (which is
>standard), black and white (which should be standard if it isn't).

I dislike giving up *any* picture area in a medium in which
any loss of frame resolution is serious...!;-) Without the
added pixels for true 16:9, I would avoid it... (and, B&W
mode is standard on all Sony cameras, and probably most
others...).

>* For people that have done DV-to-Film in the past, is it best to
>originally shoot in Canon's "frame movie mode" (should I go that
>route) or shoot in normal video mode? What cameras have you found
>best that work with this technique?

Either PAL Canon (or maybe the new NTSC 24fps Panasonic),
or NTSC interlaced, from what I hear... But if you
are in NTSC-land, most of your output is likely to
be seen on TV, and it should therefore be shot
30fps drop-frame interlaced for best results...

>* Can I interchange lenses and filters with the VX2000?

Filters and WA/tele converters, but not the built-in
(very good) lens. To see how good this lens is, go to:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm, and notice that
even wide-open, shooting a difficult-for-video distant
scene, the picture corners are surprisingly good and
consistent with center resolution, with little change
in the image with aperture change except for illumination
evenness and diffraction-limited resolution losses at
small stops.

>* I've heard that the VX2000's manual zoom has a bit of a "delay" from
>the time you move it to the time it actually zooms in the camera. Is
>this true?

No, in that once you hit the first switch position
with the rocker, zooming starts immediately. There is
motion of the rocker before the first switch, though.
If this bothers you, use an external Lanc controller
for zooming...

>I realize that DV isn't going to have the same quality as film, but
>there's always a trade-off and I just can't afford to work with film
>at this point in my life. I'd rather have a camera that allows me the
>freedom to shoot what I want and edit it it non-linearly without any
>of that "hassle" and added expense.

Yes, *quite* useful. And the video medium is now good
enough to permit the production of satisfying and
useable material. When I first saw video, I wondered why
anyone interested in high-quality images would bother
with it. No longer do I wonder...;-) DV original,
carefully shot and edited for highest quality results,
while not as good as good 35mm (or even good 16mm), can
still look *very* good on TV...!

>So, hopefully, you people know better than I do and can provide me
>with some insight.

Naw! Impossible! ;-)