On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 04:13:51 GMT, B&SY
>B&SY wrote:
>> B&SY wrote:
>> > Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:01:48 GMT, B&SY
>> > >
>> > > >One thing folks haven't talked about concern the lenses of the cameras, I
>> > > >don't care what DV can do if it has a crappie lens. A professional lens on
>> > > >either a Hi-8 or SVHS will produce a more satisfying (read well defined and
>> > > >sharp) image than a typical cheap lens (fuzzy) on most consumer DV units.
>> > > >That's why I'm still staying with my SVHS camcorder, it has a fantastic lens.
>> > > >Sure the color might be a little brighter on a DV unit, but I'm not after the
>> > > >color as much as I'm after a clear picture.
>> > > >Sure the digital can be multi layered without much signal loss, but I can
>> > > >digitize my stock SVHS footage anytime and have the advantage of DV, and you
>> > > >can pick up used pro Hi-8 or SVHS camcorders for a very low price. The morel
>> > > >of this story is just be well educated about what's out there to buy before
>> > > >you plunk down your money!
>> > > I'm not about to say that this isn't true for you, but in my
>> > > experience many consumer-oriented mini-DV camcorders do have
>> > > excellent lenses (see the frame-grabs from seven of them
>> > > plus one Beta SP with a lens that cost more than some of the
>> > > camcorders combined, in a camcorder comparison article on
>> > > my web page - under "I babble"...). What most separates
>> > > the expensive lens from the good-but-cheap is wide-aperture
>> > > edge performance (plus "real" controls...). If the lens is
>> > > used knowingly (with the aperture locked at a good stop, if
>> > > possible), the mini-DV advantages of higher resolution and
>> > > lossless copying can be realized. One may still prefer the
>> > > "smoother" look of some analogue formats, but when it comes
>> > > to maximizing sharpness, the analogue formats have met their
>> > > match with mini-DV...
>> > I under stand what you're saying, but I disagree. I compared a Sony VX1000 with a
>> > JVC GX-Y2 with a pro lens, I don't know what brand. Even though the color was
>> > better on the Sony and believe me, I wish the GX has such color, I still preferred
>> > the JVC because there wasn't any 4:1:1 blockyness and the images were sharper.
>> > Maybe it's me but that's what I saw!
>> Yes - people do have different preferences... (And things may
>> have been affected by conditions - I found this again while comparing
>> cameras [the lighting conditions must be exactly the same, with the
>> same picture brightness - and low-light is not a VX-1000 specialty]).
>> The picture is very sharp on the VX-1000 in good light, but it does
>> show mini-DV compression-effect "business" on fine detail
>I called it blockyness!
>> - but the
>> fine detail is there, unlike with most other formats (try distant
>> trees - the texture of leaves can be quite good, which is difficult
>> for video). By the time you get analogue digitized, and back out to
>> tape, there is no contest. Still, the Beta SP in the test, unimpressive
>> as the sharpness is, looked good - very "quiet".
>I disagree!
>I guess we're just going to have a difference of opinion on this topic!
Hmmmm, prolly not...;-)
I think we are in agreement, if the conditions are stated
more clearly (and are more equal...). Assuming the usual
desktop compression rates for digitising analogue, you
would probably not disagree with what I said; and given
a low (and expensive) 3:1 compression rate I now know
you were refering to, that part of my objection to your
conclusion disappears... (less compression of the analogue,
and the generation losses diminish). If you change your
"sharpness" to something like "smoothness", we are closer
on picture evaluation, too (my original objection was to
your comment on superior picture sharpness of analogue
lenses/formats vs. mini-DV [VX-1000], since this has not
been my experience, but I do agree that analogue images
can look better in that they can be free of the obvious
mini-DV compression effects. I like mini-DV for its
excellent color, good image sharpness, lack of dropout
problems, and lack of generation losses when edited with
relatively inexpensive gear. I do not insist it is the
best-looking format in every respect, since there are
obvious problems with it in terms of picture smoothness.
You obviously value that "smoothness" over some of the
obvious problems your choice of formats has - and that
is a most reasonable thing to do. There is, unfortunately,
no ideal video format for me within my financial reach,
but mini-DV does serve me well enough. It does not, I
think, have some of the shortcomings that you stated,
in the form that you stated them, in my opinion - but
I think in the end, we agree on the differences in
image quality when things are sorted out...
(BTW, the mini-DV camcorder comparison article referred
to is on my web site, listed in the "I babble" index...)