On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:01:24 +0100, Moving Vision
>
> I guess the only proof will be to have all the cameras together at the
>same time using the same monitors and shooting in differing test
>conditions. Then to play back the recorded media using objective
>measurements such as the actual number of definable lines resolved on a
>standard test card, noise, grain, contrast handling, colour registration
>and the proof of ones own eyes.
>
>Personally I have mostly experienced the PD150, VX1000 and PD100 in the
>compact DV/DVCAM class. To a lessor extent, by choice after the
>experience, I have also used the XL1 and JVC DV500. As a cameraman I
>have used many Digi Beta and SP cameras and short of High Def the best
>is still the DVW 790.
>
>First off, the PD150 achieves the maximum resolution of 540 lines, not
>500 as mooted in this strand, Sony call it "over 530 lines" as they
>don't want to admit that it achieves the same as a DVW790 Digi Beta! But
>then resolution is not everything.
>
>What I like about the 150 is that it is an honest bit of kit, it is not
>pretending to be something that it's not. As far as I'm concerned none
>of the other cheap DV's produce better pictures and most of them are
>worse.
>
>The DV500 is the biggest pretender of the lot. The DV500 would be a
>better camera with a three thousand pound ($4,200) lens on the front,
>but then the limitations of the JVC 1/2" chips would offer diminishing
>returns on that investment and the overall cost would place the 500 in
>such a price (and bulk) bracket that we are no longer comparing apples
>with apples. The pretend broadcast lens given away with it is softer
>than the suprisingly good lens fixed to the 150. Although generally
>bigger chips are better, the advanced 1/3rd inch HAD chips of the 150
>are at least a generation ahead of the JVC. Most broadcast cameramen are
>still waiting for JVC, Canon and Panasonic to produce chips that are as
>good as Sony, Ikigami, Thompson and Phillips! Sony are cynical and
>arrogant b........d's but when aspirations meet reality they just keep
>getting it closer to the mark and provide the overwhelming percentage of
>the worlds broadcast equipment.
>
>Another thing to be considered is that NTSC is not as kindly to video as
>PAL, thats why PAL counties use Digi Beta as much as film for high value
>drama where as NTSC counties still use film even for soaps. This is very
>noticeable here in the UK when viewing digital satellite TV. Surfing
>between CNN and Fox News and BBC and ITN the difference is more dramatic
>than subtle. Compared to the almost too real, as though looking through
>a window, quality of PAL the NTSC material is very soft and the colours
>are noisy and the gating makes everything look as though its being
>viewed through a filter.
>
>NTSC compact DV's are close to the absolute minimum for broadcast but in
>PAL they can look pretty damned good. Only trouble for us in the UK is
>that just about all new productions for our own channels are 16x9 and
>all compact DV's are only viable with the use of an anamorphic lens
>adapter, which although providing full resolution conversion, limit the
>zoom ratio and can not be back focused.
>
>etc.,etc., etc.
--
John Lubran
http://www.movingvision.co.uk
Thanks for posting a lot of good sense, included in whole,
above... BTW, a couple of years ago, I had a bunch of
Mini-DV cameras (and a low-end BetaSP) all together and
available for shooting in the same set of differing
conditions, and shot video with each, and used the results
to publish a comparison article with frame-grabs,
descriptions of observed motion-video differences, and
descriptions of observed sound-quality differences, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm. I now
see that I was naive in assuming that people could/would
look at what was presented, be able to judge picture
characteristics for themselves, and come to their own
conclusions about what was "better" and worse"...;-)
In the intervening years, we hear here, "I like the
'warm' XYZ picture, the ABC picture is too 'clinical'",
"I prefer the LMN picture for its 'clarity', the QRS
picture looks too 'soft'", etc. Occassionally some post
the opinion that most desireable is a picture that is
the most neutral-characteristic in terms of picture
"subjective" aspects like color bias/saturation and
contrast, but which optimizes (as much as possible,
within the severe limitations of the medium) the
"objective" technical aspects like resolution,
color-depth, brilliance, distortion, color-blooming,
noise, low-light range, etc., while at the same time
minimizing (as much as possible, within a very imperfect
medium) negative picture artifacting like oversharpening,
CCD light propagation, "stair-stepping", mosquito
noise, etc. It seems self-evident that one would prefer
(at least for this one aspect...) the camera that
produces the most neutral, highest-quality, least
artifacted picture, for the obvious reason that this
is the least limiting in terms of what "workarounds"
are need, or in what shooting styles or subject/lighting
types are made difficult or impossible to use.
Apparently, though, it appears that either some
people actually prefer inferior picture quality (for
the "look", limiting as that is...), or deny that
there actually are any standards (though the difference
in picture characteristics are obvious...). I find both
these positions difficult to accept... Why choose the
inferior, when the superior is readily available?
In an attempt to describe the specific video picture
aspects, with examples (when possible), so as to
establish something by way of standards (admittedly
in a poor-quality medium) that people can use for
judging for themselves the relative overall quality
of the mix of good and bad that is present in the
visual output of all cameras, I wrote:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm.
If anyone has suggestions for changes/additions for
this, I'd like to hear them.
Thanks.