On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:50:19 GMT, muckensam@my-deja.com wrote:

>The age old question- but here's the twist: I have the trv-900 right
>now and am happy with it.. But I recently got my hands dirty filming a
>short with a friend and didn't quiet like it's low-light performance..
>OK.. It was pretty bad.. I don't blame the camera (people, this camera
>is incredible- it gave a kid like myself the means to persue a lifelong
>dream), but will the XL1 perform any better? I almost feel like I'm
>being disloyal to my camera by asking this question, but is the XL1
>really a better camera?

You can find (critical....) reviews of several
Mini-DV camcorders at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
The short answer: "generally, no (with some
exceptions...)". Look at the VX-2000/PD-150 for
a less expensive camera that has a better picture
in any light level, and has exceptionally good
performance in low light.

>Last question - does the "movie mode" on the xl1 REALLY
>look like 16mm film? Is the 30fps progessive scan (compared to 15 on
>the TRV900) alone worth the xtra dough? Also, am I better off just
>saving my money and getting a film look plugin like cinelook or filmfx
>(and do these really help make it look LESS like video? - as an honest
>guy that pays when software is worth it, please let me know if I can
>try before I buy).. I would appreciate any info guys and thank you from
>a poor college guy that's going crazy trying to put his passion on a
>little Mini-DV tape.

Best to get on with the last, and not worry too
much 'bout camcorder differences - you already have
a good one... And, rather than trying to turn video
into film, why not take advantage of video's strengths
compared with film? With video, you can do pans/tilts/
other-movements relatively freely, and you can
experiment cheaply, learning a lot "hands-on" at
relatively low cost compared with film. Video is
different from film, and (at least with Mini-DV),
cannot look like film (just, at best, like
"fake-film look").