This stuff is silly, but you make accusations that I suppose
I ought to answer...
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:12:40 -0500, "Dirk J. Bakker"
>>
>
>
>
>>>WHAT is it that you mean by "I agree, so far..." Or is your
>>>over-inclusion of long-nosed "winks" intented to mean what Pinochio's
>>>long nose traditionally does? As is your insistance in using the XL1 and
>>>the XL1s interchangeably in these discussions and your "comparison"
>>>article?
I never use the XL-1 and XL-1s interchangeably in the
comparison article - the "s" didn't exist when it was
done. I do (as do others) use them as interchangeably
in posts as I would "PD100" and "PD100a", when the
differences are unimportant... An XL-1 is an XL-1s,
for the most part, much as some would have us believe
that it is a really new and different camera that corrects
all of the deficiencies of the earlier version (though
when the earlier one was current, it was then claimed
also free of the commonly-reported problems...;-)
If you insist on always differentiating the XL-1 and
XL-1s, then I should insist on differentiating the
sample variations of the XL1(s) - shall we call each
XL-1 by a different letter, as in XL1s(A), etc.?
>>>If I were you, I'd update it, if you mean it to be 'fair' and the
>>>over-use of the emoticons, lest you not be understood or worse risk not
>>>being taken seriously.
Those who fear not being taken seriously perhaps should
not express opinions freely...;-) I present observations
and conclusions based on them; others are free to look at
what I looked at (or anything else) and do the same...;-)
As for the reviews, if you would like to provide an
XL-1s at no expense to me, I will compare it with the
VX2000 (and maybe the JVC 500) - the original comparison
was done with what was available in-hand at the time,
for my own interest. Since I had what I thought might be
useful information for others, I published it on my web
site. VERY few complain about what I presented (either
observations, or conclusions), and many thank me - and
there have been a LOT of hits on the comparison article
(at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm).
>>"If you can't argue substance, argue style" may apply
>>here...? ;-)
>Hardly. I was and STILL AM directly asking (note sentences ending with
>"?") you to clarify your intention.
You were commenting on emoticons and my credibility, as
I recall...;-)
>Meantime, you provide us with yet
>another example in your rebuttal to Jim Harvey's very insightful
>comments as to the "shrillness" of your commentary. There you
>conveniently "leaned" on the use of your long-nosed "winks, to clearly
>weasel out of your statement. And I quote:
>
>>J.H.: I've visited your website and seen your comparisons, which in all honesty
>>are just as subjective and any other out there, but for you to finally snap
>>and claim that the image from an XL-1 and GL-1 are "The PITS" is just so
>>silly as to be unbelievable that it came from your mouth errr.... fingers.
>>If you truly believe this then your credibility has plummeted to a negative
>>number.
*This* is not "shrill"...? ;-)
>And your reply:
>"You must learn to read more accurately...;-)
>Partly jokingly (note those ";-)s"...), I did say the
>***GL-1*** picture was "THE PITTS", but only half-jokingly,
>since it did have the most faults of the bunch compared...
>
>If CH considers the picture of the XL-1s and the GL-1 of similar
>quality, and if this is true, then the XL-1s picture must therefore also
>be poor compared with the others in the original set of cameras
>compared. This is simple logic...;-)"
This is "shrill"...? ;-) It is an explanation, and simple
logic... (something the "C-brand loyalists" do seem unable
to handle, though...;-). Witness the below:
>One blatant possibility you left out of your simplistic "logic" was that
>your initial assessment (now clearly a firm prejudice) about the GL-1's
>picture quality was perhaps MISTAKEN. Such is your prejudice, that
>rather than question this initial assessment, you rather dispense with
>your own stated KNOWLEDGE of the merits the XL1s' picture. I would not
>call that "logic", but evidence of an agenda.
I'm putting together now a new article, a "glossary" of
picture characteristics and defects. While I avoid naming
the cameras whose images were used to show multiple defects,
I will reveal to you a secret: most of them were "C"-models
(I did use others, *when possible*, though...;-). The fact
is, the picture of the GL-1 does have many faults (as does
the picture of every other model), but the GL-1, for a
3-chipper, does have the most faults in the greatest degree,
and overall, the worst picture... Perhaps after I publish
the "glossary" and you become more aware of picture
characteristics and deficiencies, the GL-1 picture will not
look so good to you (as, to my surprise, did it to the
writers of a camcorder comparison article in PC Magazine
[these magazine reviews ordinarily NEVER pan a product],
who placed it bottom of the three 3-chippers compared).
BTW, the XL-1 picture DOES share some of the problems of
the GL-1 picture, but I consider it better. I was surprised
when another "C-brand loyalist" equated the XL-1S and GL-1
picture, since this relatively *brings down* his assessment
of the XL-1s picture, and makes me wonder if the XL-1s
picture is actually worse than the XL-1 picture, which
was somewhat better than the GL-1 picture...;-)
>Also note you failed to respond to the second of my questions. So I will
>rephrase it:
>Don't you think that for someone who repeatedly professes (or is this
>just another of your "rubber stamps", as you put it) to be "objective
>and observant", your unwillingness to EDUCATE yourself on the difference
>between the XL1 and the XL1s, your repeated, interchangeable and somehow
>covenient use of the designations, and, failure to revise your
>comparison article are a DISSERVICE to its readers and for that matter
>anyone you profess to be of help?
When I get *paid* to test and publish results on *other*
than my own site, you may say the above... Before then,
I will make reasonable assumptions, based on REAL info
I come across (not "C-brand-loyalist" claims and
opinions...;-). So far, no one has SHOWN me, in
side-by-side comparison images, that the XL-1s picture
is in ANY WAY different from the XL-1 (am I being
too "shrill" for you...?;-). From specs, it would appear
that real resolution cannot have been improved, and it
is also unlikely that other ill effects have been changed.
Send me an XL-1s, though (PP both ways...;-), and I will
go to the trouble of checking this out...;-) Or, *you* set
the two cameras (and a VX2000/PD150, for good measure)
side-by-side in the same lighting conditions, shoot
footage, and frame-grab the best frames from all
(I gave a recommended list of subject-types in an
earlier post) - and publish them for us to see...
Not enough time? No money in it, therefore...?;-)
One can verbalize all day, but, "a picture is worth
a thousand words"...;-)
>>Heck, a couple of "Canon-loyalists" even
>>attacked my web designs in an earlier, similar
>>thread...! ;-) I think, soon, I will get a rubber stamp
>>for my responses, since the "points" raised in this
>>thread are so old, oft-repeated, and already
>>well-answered...;-)
>Don't worry, they already ARE dispensed as "rubber stamps", so rather
>than that being the "answer" more would be gained first in educating
>yourself and allowing that you are indeed prejudiced.
My comments to you, exactly...;-)