On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:22:14 GMT, Chris Hurd wrote:

>Howdy from Texas,

>Neuman - Ruether wrote...
[issues well-covered already removed - and I was
trying to leave this thread since we were recovering
ground at this point, but a new issue has come up...]

>They're more than welcome to post on my message
>boards at www.dvinfo.net/conf for assistance and
>feedback from nearly 1,000 members without
>wading through the usenet gutter, so sure!

Ah, so you are here "slumming", is that it...?;-)
You don't appear to hold usenet in high regard,
based on the above and other comments earlier,
though it is the 'net's oldest and most "democratic"
part...

>> I guess you like a myriad of horrid edge effects,
>> poor sharpness, odd color, excess contrast?

>I hate 'em actually, but nobody I'm aware of who
>knows how to shoot decent video has *ever* had
>these anamolies in such a superb little camcorder
>as the GL1.
>
>For some strange reason, *you* are the only
>person I'm aware of who has ever claimed
>such extremes. I would be happy to show
>you beautiful, crystal-sharp video from this
>camcorder -- can I send you a tape?

No, thank you - it would be as meaningless as my
saying that the Sony TRV9 (the worst performer of
all the Mini-DV cameras in my comparison reviews...)
was capable of "beautiful, crystal-sharp video",
which it is, but I don't think seeing that nice
footage shot with it would (or should) convince
you that the TRV9 is anything but how I first
described it...;-) With limited-capability
gear, good footage can be had if the subject type
and lighting are controlled/selected to favor the
outcome. I suspect that your, "who knows how to shoot
decent video" is relevant to this...;-) The point
is: the better the gear, the less limiting it is
in terms of what you can shoot, and how you shoot
it, for fine results - but fine results can be had
with inferior gear under more limited/limiting
conditions. (My guess is that the GL-1 footage
you like was shot medium or close distance [if
wide], either under controlled artificial lighting,
or under flat available lighting, and was not a
landscape, cityscape, or daylight-available room
interior with windows showing in the frame...;-)
BTW, check out John Beale's web page for more on
the GL-1 and VX2000...;-) And, a surprise today,
a comparison review of Mini-DV camcorders in PC
Magazine (of all places...;-) I happened to see
today actually pointed out some of the GL-1's
picture faults (something that is RARE in magazine
reviews, which ordinarily NEVER fault the products
reviewed!;-), and they were right (though they
missed a couple that annoy me...;-).

>Better yet, if you have Showtime, check out
>Chris Ward's documentary "Outwitting Hitler,"
>a lot of GL1 video in there... if it's as bad as
>you claim, surely it would have been rejected
>for broadcast? Showtime is rather stringent...

Heck, PC1 footage has been broadcast, and I've
made a nice little video with the PC1 that no one
would find technically deficient - but no one in
their right mind would recommend the PC1 for
general commercial shooting... These examples of
yours miss the point. Any camera can be used for
broadcast of some limited types of material, and
any camera can sell in the thousands, and neither
answers the usual question that arises here: "With
a budget of $6000/$4000/$2500/$1800/$1000/$600,
what is the best camera to buy (presumably for
highest-quality results, and for general-purpose
use, unless otherwise specified)?". At each of these
price levels, the answer is not "Canon" (except,
possibly, at the lowest ;-), unless ***specific***
conditions have been stated that would *particularly*
direct one to a Canon solution and no other. The
reason for this is simple: at each price point,
an alternative to a Canon model exists that
performs better than the Canon. You and other
"Canon-loyalists" may not like this (and this does
not say that the Canon solution is unusable/unlikeable,
etc.), but if you look critically and objectively
at the important video-camera performance, control,
and handling issues, it is hard not to arrive at
this conclusion, much as you may not like it...

>> The *old* XL-1 was so much better than the GL-1
>> for picture and sound quality that the above statements
>> may have just ended my faith in the value of our
>> "conversations"...

>I can show you crystal clear, beautiful video that was
>shot with both cameras and you would not be able
>to discern the difference. The GL1 intercuts
>seamlessly with the XL1 and quite well with the
>XL1S. In competent, capable hands, of course.

Yes - but this surely leads me to the conclusion.
if true, that the XL-1s image quality is not among
the best... I think this is not what you intended...;-)

>> If you have not the ability to discern near-gross levels
>> of difference in picture and sound quality, it is no wonder
>> that we appear to get nowhere.

>If your hands-on experience resulted in producing such
>awful image results from such a capable little camcorder,
>then it is indeed no wonder... perhaps I can show you
>how to use it sometime? ;-)

Thanks, no - I'm familiar enough with its many faults
to not want to bother finding ways to minimize them
on-screen...;-) I prefer more universally-usable gear...

>If you couldn't get good looking video out of that
>camcorder, then I must regard your other "evaluations"
>with a great degree of suspicion... unless by chance
>you had a bad sample? Again, can I send you a tape?

Thanks, no. But if you get around to shooting those
comparisons (especially the set I recommended
earlier), I am interested in looking at those...
BTW, the comparison frame-grabs I shot (with descriptions
of motion-video characteristics, and sound characteristics)
are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm,
and the VX2000PD150 comparisons with some of the same
cameras covered in the first review are at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm, for those
who have missed them. Look carefully at the frame grabs
from the GL-1 - you can see the bright "halos" on
contrasty edges, the lack of fine detail, the difficulty
with rendering near-vertical lines as smooth and continuous
lines, the excessively-high contrast (that burns out highlights
and sky detail too easily) and the color bias,
compared with others, for yourself...

I really would like to get on with other things at this
point, such as adding a test for diffraction effects
with aperture to my web page tomorrow (using the VX2000,
since its resolution is the highest of the group of
camcorders I've used, and therefore it is the most
suitable for showing the subtle effects of diffraction
on resolution...;-)