On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:30:11 -0000, Mark Murphy wrote:

>Dear David-Ruether-of-Cornell,
>
>The gentle back and forth sparring between you and the others in this
>newsgroup has been helpful to me in my search for my next video camera. I
>have a question on one issue that has not been discussed. The quote below
>is an excerpt from a document that I read containing a procedure for
>giving video footage a "film look." A "film look" sounds like something
>cool that I might want to achieve on down the road when I want to run one
>of my creations by Spielburg. The author seems to think progressive scan
>mode is important for this "film look," and thus the canon cameras would
>be a better choice if you want to achieve this look. Can you comment on
>how important this progressive scan mode difference is when trying to
>achieve this look and what the Sony VX2000's capabilities are in this
>area? Thanks, Mark-Murphy-of-Texas
>The quote:
>"First , it helps to have the video shot on a camera that supports
>Progressive Scan mode. This means that the camera takes an entire photo-
>quality frame in a single 29.97 fps sweep rather than interlacing 60
>fields. Fields are the enemy of those seeking to simulate film since film
>exposes complete frames. I use Canon DV Camcorders since they feature
>Progressive Scan modes."

If you must have PS-mode, Canon is the way to go in Mini-DV
(Sony PS-mode looks so-so to bad [in the VX-2000, PS-mode is
optimized for still-photo use only]). I think PS-mode is a
silly fad, though, for anything but full-res. computer
monitor viewing, since it throws away one of video's
advantages over film: smoother and sharper rendition of
motion. In addition, as I pointed out in that friendly
sparring, for several reasons (see my reviews, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm ) I think
the Sony 3-chip Mini-DV camcorder image quality is better
than the Canon 3-chip Mini-DV camcorder image quality - so
for me, going for Canon PS-mode is a "double degradation"
of your potential camcorder image quality. I'm also a bit
mystified by the whole idea of "film look"... What is it
that one is looking for? Scratches, splotches, dust, the
afore-mentioned problem with motion-rendition, or...? ;-)
Video is video, film is film - be happy with the inherent
characteristics of each. If you like the tonal range of
film, or the color characteristics, a little fiddling in
a good video editor may get you close enough...