On Tue, 14 May 2002 23:53:40 GMT, FIVE
>In article <3ce28c07.16654753
>@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, rpn1
>@cornell.edu says...
>> On Tue, 14 May 2002 20:58:55 GMT, FIVE
>>
>> >In article <3ce15c31.4407133
>> >@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, rpn1
>> >@cornell.edu says...
>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2002 15:41:54 GMT, "news-server.nyc.rr.com"
>> >>
>> >> >Hey, I just sold my trv900 to upgrade to a better camera.. This 24p 3CCD
>> >> >panasonic looks really nice but it's coming out in september- is it worth
>> >> >waiting for? Anyone know how much this will go for? I'm looking to pick up
>> >> >an XL1 but will wait if this thing really looks more like film.. Thanks!
>> >> You may find this interesting:
>> >> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
>> >David..you seem to not mention much about
>> >what he was asking.
>> Yes - I was trying hard to refrain from commenting
>> on his selling a very good camera and buying even
>> temporarily another that is much more expensive,
>> but not better in most ways (better in audio only,
>> really...),
>1) Actually better in low light (larger
>ccd's)
>2) Better audio
>3) Better connections for audio
>4) Better color with larger ccd's
>5) less noise with larger ccd's
>6) Getting away from a known troubled
>transport of the TRV-900
>7) AS an "upgrade" it doesn't cost much
>more.
??????????
I was referring to the interim purchas of an XL-1,
about which only items 2 and 3 really apply...
>> for possibly "grass is greener where
>> I ain't" reasons, perhaps, or for shooting more
>> "film-like video", an absurdity, really... (the
>> two media are quite different). And I was
>> indicating a site that may have led him more
>> gently to these conclusions, mebbe - but you have
>> led me to being more direct in my response...;-)
>Direct is sometimes the best route.
Sometimes it is good to give someone a little credit
for intelligence, and supplying the background raw data
instead of a "finished" answer... But, I could well be
wrong on this...;-)
As for the below, all of this may be true (we don't know
yet), but I was referring to the XL-1, not the Panasonic
(the interim purchase of an XL-1 did not make a lot
of sense, unless needs were very specific and timely in
nature...).
>AS for Grass is greener, to me, it sounds
>like that is the camcorder I have been
>waiting for, all of the plusses and so far
>no minuses. [...]
>Tell the truth Dave, Have you seen
>progressive straight to computer...it looks
>DAMN good!!!
Of course! It is a PS-mode medium - but most
people shoot for TV most of the time, and PS-mode
is a poor choice for that interlaced medium...
The new Panasonic does look VERY interesting
and versatile, but its real performance quality
will be known only when it is actually used - "air"
gear is useless, regardless of the specs...;-)
Panasonic has had a string of "misses" in DV (that
looked good on paper) - perhaps this newest camera
will finally be done right...?
[...rest deleted...]