Pros and Cons list for VX2000 vs GL-1
lawr...@mac.com
which camera to buy. I am on a Mac and need a compatible
FireWire camera to use with both iMovie and FCP.
I am leaning toward the Sony if the color can be manually
adjusted. From everything I have read, the ONLY thing the Sony is
lagging behind is, is matching colors in the real world. From the
photos I've seen and from what people say, their is a pretty
constant bluish cast. If these can be corrected with some settings,
it would be worth playing around with to get it nailed down so that
all that was needed was a white balance. Does the Sony retain the
settings or are they reset after the camera is turned off?
Below is a list that I have made that I am hoping to get feedback on
to figure out if my list is accurate or not. I would greatly appreciate
your feedback if you have experience with either (or both) of these
models, please put your 2¢ in!
Here is my "advantages / disadvantages list" (that I have perceived
from reading) that are swaying my decision:
(in order of relevance)
Sony DCR-VX2000 +
Better in low light.
Much better internal mic and manual sound control.
Superior CCD size and pixel count.
Sharper overall image with more lines of resolution.
Much better selection of accessories (Sony and after-market)
Better still photo quality and easier to keep separate.
16:9 ratio for movie making.
Built in color bars for color calibration.
Seamless integration with other Sony components via LANC
Interval recording for time-lapse work.
More digital effects (which I probably won't use on the camera.)
Sony -
Cold hue.
Has a hard time with red colors.
15 fps frame mode.
Canon GL-1 +
Warmer more accurate colors.
Longer optical zoom.
Second set of controls on handle.
lower price (by $300)
30 fps frame mode.
Better balanced. ?
Better image stabilization. ?
Can share flash with my Canon G1 digital camera.
Canon -
Terrible built in mic and no manual audio control.
Noise or "particles" in low light situations.
Slower auto-focus.
Needs editing deck because of Reduced lines of resolution (440)
in playback.
Black stripes on sides of image which may interfere with editing.
Stair stepping effect on diagonal objects.
Fuzzy images with pixel shift.
Lawrance
Larry's FZR Page
http://www3.mwis.net/~lawrance/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Neuman - Ruether
>Like the rest of the world, I am in the same boat trying to figure out
>which camera to buy. I am on a Mac and need a compatible
>FireWire camera to use with both iMovie and FCP.
There are (critical...) reviews of both on my web page, at:
www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
>I am leaning toward the Sony if the color can be manually
>adjusted. From everything I have read, the ONLY thing the Sony is
>lagging behind is, is matching colors in the real world.
??????
Aside from the philosophical conclusion that NO
medium/device/etc. can do that, I find one of the
best aspects of the VX-2000 is its "natural" color
(with hue-bias up two notches, but that's what
such controls are for...) I didn't like the
"everything is orange" look of the GL-1 (in
addition to other "misses" in the picture...).
>From the
>photos I've seen and from what people say, their is a pretty
>constant bluish cast. If these can be corrected with some settings,
>it would be worth playing around with to get it nailed down so that
>all that was needed was a white balance. Does the Sony retain the
>settings or are they reset after the camera is turned off?
They are retained. In addition, I prefer the DWB preset
in day-light. For tungsten, AWB is OK, but I back the
hue-bias down some to reduce orange. Raising the
sharpness a notch shows little ill effect, but adds
a touch of crispness to the image. I generally reduce
the AE-bias some - best sharpness and color is had when
the picture is not too bright, and in stock form, the
VX-2000 picture appears a bit too bright to me...
>Below is a list that I have made that I am hoping to get feedback on
>to figure out if my list is accurate or not. I would greatly appreciate
>your feedback if you have experience with either (or both) of these
>models, please put your 2¢ in!
>
>Here is my "advantages / disadvantages list" (that I have perceived
>from reading) that are swaying my decision:
>
>(in order of relevance)
>
>Sony DCR-VX2000 + [advantages]
>Better in low light.
>Much better internal mic and manual sound control.
>Superior CCD size and pixel count.
>Sharper overall image with more lines of resolution.
>Much better selection of accessories (Sony and after-market)
>Better still photo quality and easier to keep separate.
Yes, to the above...
>16:9 ratio for movie making.
Not of interest to me, so haven't used it...
>Built in color bars for color calibration.
>Seamless integration with other Sony components via LANC
Not used... For me, bottom line is: good picture; good
sound; useable controls. The other stuff is gravy, but
not critical. The VX-2000 does very well what is
important to me.
>Interval recording for time-lapse work.
How to wear out the mechanism faster...
>More digital effects (which I probably won't use on the camera.)
Right...
>Sony - [disadvantages]
>Cold hue.
Easily-cured.
>Has a hard time with red colors.
Not really. It does show more problems with red
than some (bloom), but when the picture controls are
adjusted for my preference, this is no longer a
problem (it is minor to begin with).
>15 fps frame mode.
The "PS" mode is optimized for still-use only - motion
video in this mode looks BAD (but why use it, anyway,
for motion-video - it just spoils smooth motion-rendering).
>Canon GL-1 + [advantages]
>Warmer more accurate colors.
I question this - maybe your TV is set too blue (common).
>Longer optical zoom.
>Second set of controls on handle.
>lower price (by $300)
Yes.
>30 fps frame mode.
Ummm.....;-)
>Better balanced. ?
Maybe - one of my complaints about the VX-2000 is its
handling (I'm going to a shoulder-brace for steadier
video with it...).
>Better image stabilization. ?
Maybe.
>Can share flash with my Canon G1 digital camera.
If you must take photos with a big, low-res camera...;-)
>Canon - [disadvantages]
>Terrible built in mic and no manual audio control.
Yes. I found the sound rather poor in tonal balance,
using the built-in mic.
>Noise or "particles" in low light situations.
It is limited to +12db, saving it from high noise levels,
but also preventing it from recording in low light levels
(the VX-2000 wipes it out here). The VX-2000 shows less
noise, but it is unusually good in this respect.
>Slower auto-focus.
The AF on the VX-2000 is unbelievably good - I have stopped
using manual focus most of the time. I don't remember
the GL-1's AF characteristics.
>Needs editing deck because of Reduced lines of resolution (440)
>in playback.
???? The GL-1 picture is noticeably less sharp than
the VX-2000's, and it is also over-sharpened(!), giving
"halos" on contrasty edges (this can be adjusted, resulting
in even less sharpness, though...). It also shows more
problems with vertical-line stairstepping than other
3-chip camcorders.
>Black stripes on sides of image which may interfere with editing.
Only possibly when the picture edge shows in an effect - and
you may actually like having the black bar there...;-)
>Stair stepping effect on diagonal objects.
All Mini-DV camcorders show stairstepping on moving
near-horizontal lines, but they vary in the amount shown
in other directions (worst being the one-chippers, but
the GL-1 is almost as bad as these).
>Fuzzy images with pixel shift.
Well, maybe not "fuzzy", but not as sharp as some others.
- Advantages for the GL-1: a 20:1 zoom that is also good at
wide stops; relatively low noise near its low-light limit;
handling.
- Otherwise...;-)
- Advantages for the VX-2000: virtually everything,
especially the basics of picture and sound quality.
- Disadvantages: few, but it is for me hard to hold steady
with the lens zoomed long; there are some negative issues
with adding external mics.
With all the above, some people don't see/hear much
difference between the two. I find that amazing, but,
then, as I pointed out in another post, all wine tastes
like vinegar to me...;-)
David Ruether
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
Chris Hurd
lawr...@mac.com wrote...
>
> From everything I have read, the ONLY thing the Sony
> is lagging behind is, is matching colors in the real world.
Lagging a bit in the lens also... GL1 optics are superior to the VX2000.
> Here is my "advantages / disadvantages list" (that I have perceived
> from reading) that are swaying my decision: Sony DCR-VX2000 +:
>
> Much better selection of accessories (Sony and after-market)
No, there are just as many if not more accessories for the GL1.
> 16:9 ratio for movie making.
Like all other prosumer DV camcorders including the GL1, the
16:9 mode on the VX2000 is "fake," a gimmick only, which will
cost you image resolution if you use it. Same for GL1. Better to
use a glass anamorphic adapter with either camera.
> Seamless integration with other Sony components via LANC
Same for GL1 -- all Canon camcorders have LANC jacks
and are fully compatable with any Sony LANC device.
> Canon -
>
> Needs editing deck because of Reduced
> lines of resolution (440) in playback.
Say what? Never heard of that. Playback is
no different than any other DV camcorder.
> Stair stepping effect on diagonal objects.
No, this is no different than any other DV camcorder.
> Fuzzy images with pixel shift.
No, pixel shift does not cause images to be fuzzy.
You can boil it down to this: the 1/3" VX2000 has better
low light performance and the memory stick. The 1/4" GL1
has better glass and it has Frame Movie mode. Each of
these factors is a distinct advantage and you'll have to
consider what your needs are.
The best thing you can do is get your hands on both
cameras and compare the images. They are different,
and this is the greatest difference between the two
cameras. Which one is "better" is a completely
subjective determination which you'll have to
make for yourself. Hope this helps,
Chris Hurd
San Marcos, TX
Chris Hurd
Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
> I didn't like the "everything is orange" look of the
> GL-1 (in addition to other "misses" in the picture...).
You know, David, I appreciate your input and respect
your viewpoints, and I'm grateful for your consent to quote
you on my website, but I have to tell you something...
I have talked to countless professional videographers and
photographers who simply love the picture the GL1 produces.
You're one of the very few photographers I've ever known
who don't like it. These are always subjective evaluations.
You are without question most outspoken here on the
newsgroups, but I feel compelled to tell you that from
my experience, your opinion is definitely in the minority.
>>Canon GL-1 + [advantages]:
>>
>>Warmer more accurate colors.
>
> I question this - maybe your TV is set too blue (common).
I don't question it at all. He's talking about that distinctive
Canon look. I see it all the time on perfectly calibrated
monitors... the Canon look is just more life-like than the
Sony. Sony images look like "video." Canon images don't...
they look better... somehow. The new CCDs in the VX2000
have improved the Sony reputation, admittedly. I'll give you that.
>> 30 fps frame mode.
>
> Ummm.....;-)
Umm, that's a distinct advantage! Many professional
shooters love Frame Movie mode and swear by it. On
the GL1 it's accessed by an external switch instead of
in the menu, making it that much better.
>> Better image stabilization. ?
>
> Maybe.
Both the Canon GL1 and the Sony VX2000 have optical
image stabilization, which is a Canon technology licensed
to Sony. Just like LANC is a Sony protocol licensed to
Canon.
> I pointed out in another post, all
> wine tastes like vinegar to me...;-)
You just haven't had the right wine yet, David!
We should get together sometime and take
care of that discrepancy.
Your Name
And if you're still not convinced drop each one on the floor from shoulder
height. Buy the one that still works. The Sony.
Neuman - Ruether
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
>Howdy from Texas,
>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>> I didn't like the "everything is orange" look of the
>> GL-1 (in addition to other "misses" in the picture...).
>You know, David, I appreciate your input and respect
>your viewpoints, and I'm grateful for your consent to quote
>you on my website, but I have to tell you something...
>
>I have talked to countless professional videographers and
>photographers who simply love the picture the GL1 produces.
>You're one of the very few photographers I've ever known
>who don't like it. These are always subjective evaluations.
>You are without question most outspoken here on the
>newsgroups, but I feel compelled to tell you that from
>my experience, your opinion is definitely in the minority.
I suspect it is...;-)
But I can't get past the color-bias, lower resolution,
edge-effects, stairstepping, etc. of the GL-1 picture,
when in most situations virtually all other 3-chip
Mini-DV camcorders produce technically-better pictures
(and which are, for me, also aesthetically better).
I don't wear sunglasses, since I want to see colors
as they are; I don't shoot with a GL-1 'cuz I don't
want everything colored orange - and with saw-tooth
edges and halos...;-)
>>>Canon GL-1 + [advantages]:
>>>
>>>Warmer more accurate colors.
>> I question this - maybe your TV is set too blue (common).
>I don't question it at all. He's talking about that distinctive
>Canon look. I see it all the time on perfectly calibrated
>monitors... the Canon look is just more life-like than the
>Sony. Sony images look like "video." Canon images don't...
>they look better... somehow. The new CCDs in the VX2000
>have improved the Sony reputation, admittedly. I'll give you that.
I guess our tastes are different - I see the multiple
faults in the Canon images (including those of the XL-1),
which have more "artifacting" and "non-neutral"
imaging qualities than Sony 3-chippers. The Canon
image, with all these defects, looks more "processed"
to me... BTW, the owner of the Canons I checked out
agreed - he tried and then immediately dumped two XL-1's,
and more recently his two GL-1's almost unused, in
favor of a TRV-900 and JVC-DV500, and now the PD150.
He does a lot of Nat. Geo. work and science-shorts,
and the Sony's (and JVC) just plain had better image
quality for his production work (he is used to high
quality - he started with film, went to BetaSP, now
uses Mini-DV, and does some very impressive "pretty"
video productions). As for the VX-2000, using the
custom controls, I get a picture that is VERY nice,
very "natural-looking", with minimal negative
characteristics - it is just plain fun to view.
I'm mystified by the appeal of the Canon image...
(Well, the color-bias is close to "rose-colored
glasses", so mebbe that's why...! ;-)
>>> 30 fps frame mode.
>> Ummm.....;-)
>Umm, that's a distinct advantage! Many professional
>shooters love Frame Movie mode and swear by it. On
>the GL1 it's accessed by an external switch instead of
>in the menu, making it that much better.
Again, if you want to throw away one of video's
advantages over film (sharp and smooth rendition
of motion), by all means use it...!;-)
>>> Better image stabilization. ?
>> Maybe.
>Both the Canon GL1 and the Sony VX2000 have optical
>image stabilization, which is a Canon technology licensed
>to Sony. Just like LANC is a Sony protocol licensed to
>Canon.
Yes, but there are different implementations of it, in terms
of what it looks like "on-screen". I think the VX-2000
fails here, as I said... (odd, since the VX-1000 stabilizer
was so good).
>> I pointed out in another post, all
>> wine tastes like vinegar to me...;-)
>You just haven't had the right wine yet, David!
>We should get together sometime and take
>care of that discrepancy.
The wine would be wasted...;-)
As the Sony picture is on you...;-), ;-), ;-)
Neuman - Ruether
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
>Howdy from Texas,
>lawr...@mac.com wrote...
>>
>> From everything I have read, the ONLY thing the Sony
>> is lagging behind is, is matching colors in the real world.
>Lagging a bit in the lens also... GL1 optics are superior to the VX2000.
(Sorry - couldn't resist responding...)
The above is irrelevant, since the imaging device and the
lens must be taken as a group. On tape, even under the most
difficult conditions, the image of the VX-2000 is sharper
than the image of the GL-1.
>> Stair stepping effect on diagonal objects.
>No, this is no different than any other DV camcorder.
Um - yes, it is... Look closely at images shot with
a GL-1 and a VX-2000 (try a book case or record cabinet),
both cameras hand-held to accentuate the effect...
Best with this was the VX-1000, but worst is the
GL-1 - it even stairsteps verticals!
>The best thing you can do is get your hands on both
>cameras and compare the images. They are different,
>and this is the greatest difference between the two
>cameras. Which one is "better" is a completely
>subjective determination which you'll have to
>make for yourself. Hope this helps,
I agree with this...!;-)
Chris Hurd
Now, now, David... you know better than that! If I didn't
like the VX2000's picture, I wouldn't have built a website
around it!
I am in awe of the VX2000. No question. I just had to
jibe you because your opinion of the GL1 is so low,
which is contrary to the viewpoints of so many other
professional shooters I've talked to. Believe me, a
lot of pro's love the GL1, love its video. I don't
think their viewpoints are any less significant
than yours!
They just don't post on usenet like you do.
Hmm, time for another glass of Zinfandel...
Richard Smedley
well, not so technical.
For one thing, noone wants to be told that the $2000-3000 they just spent on
camera "A" could have been better spent on camera "B". This is just human
nature and you see it all the time, particularly with vehicles. My
brother-in-law loves Chevy trucks. I personnaly think they're crap and
would never buy another one. We've both owned them and speak from
experience.
Another factor is brand loyalty. Some people just love Chevys because,
well, they're Chevys.
Now these factors are easy to spot. If a person says Sony is crap and Canon
is the best (or vice versa) I'd say you should ignore that remark and just
chaulk it up to factors 1 or 2 (see above).
What you really should pay attention to, in my not so humble opinion, is
Chris's advice -- go try them out side-by-side with all the technical advice
you can remember from this NG tucked away for reference. Are they both good
cameras? Sure. Will you buy one and then become a Sony or Canon bigot --
probably!
Richard
<lawr...@mac.com> wrote in message news:9623l0$166$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Manxprods
Lest we forget--we don't shoot silent movies and sound is a big issue with the
GL1.
I've done sound on several movies shot with the GL1. It's biggest problem is
AGC that can't be turned off. That means the camera won't quit trying to set
the sound level for you. If it's circuits "think" background noise is your
subject, it gains the background up, then compresses your desired sound's level
so the two are almost the same volume and your dialogue is lost in the mud. By
far the most problematic sound I've ever had to deal with. This alone
disqualifies this camera for all-around professional work. But hey, what a
great camera for a well-heeled doctor or lawyer or whatever to shoot the wife
and kids with!
Near broadcast quality home videos! And hey, with AGC always on, the sound is
always the right level in a quiet family home. And if you shoot down at the
beach, it'll make sure you hear those crashing waves really well, whether you
want to hear them or not! Look at the owners manual to see who this camera was
made for. It's filled with cartoonish figures of various family members. I
would certainly call the XL1 prosumer, but the GL1 is a consumer piece that
will also work sort of okay for poorly financed prosumers--who don't know or
care much about sound quality.
Now of course this has been dealt with before on this NG, but when making a
buying choice, sound should also matter.
With that in mind don't forget that Sony also sins with Sound. The VX-2000,
unlike the PD150, has not been upgraded to eliminate the infamous hiss you get
when using an external microphone. While new PD150 units come fixed, and old
PDs were fixed free, VX-2000s still have the problem and Sony charges $150 to
fix it. I say apply that to getting a PD150 instead.
Come to think of it, the XL1 can also be very problematic for sound if you try
to hook up an XLR adapter. It's got a quite a reputation for 60-cycle buzzes
when hooked up to otherwise quiet mixing boards such as Mackies. I almost blew
an interview with John Voight the first time I encountered the problem. The
last shoot I was on doing sound, the DP had two friends who'd encountered the
same problem and hadn't been able to fix it.
As for the fix, I find that it's a good idea to patch in a direct box and apply
ground lift to make the XL1 work with an XLR adapter and a mixer. This is a
very sporadic problem, though. The Canon MA-100 adapter will always buzz with
a Mackie, and even the Beachtek "Quiet Connection" sometimes is not so quiet,
but sometimes they work. Once unplugging my field monitor from A/C and
running it off a battery cleaned up an MA-100, which I still wonder about.
Both Beachtek and MA-100 work perfectly with my DC field mixer. Oddly, my
Behringer mixer doesn't give me the same troubles as the Mackie even though
it's clearly a lower quality piece.
And one more beef. Why don't the makers of these XLR adapters include phantom
power on them? The fact that none of them offer phantom power can only be
because these accessories are not targeted at pros who use decent condenser
mics like a Sennheiser 416 or equivalent. Electret mics are probably what they
expect their market to use or phantom would be a design requirement.
And as for image quality, a few thoughts as well...
Also I have a good field monitor with two composite inputs I bring along when
doing sound so that I can keep the boom guy out of frame. Found that I was
asked to A & B switch between a VX-2000 and an XL1. The comparison revealed an
obvious advantage for the Sony. Deeper blacks, sharper image, other colors
more real. In fact the Sony looked so much better that the producers of the
film decided not to attempt the two camera shooting they were planning. Which
camera did they use? The XL1. Why? Because the DP owned it and insisted the
"film" use it.
The Canon "orange" look is a real blight on the video landscape all right, but
is only problematic because so many prosumers don't know how to run a decent
manual white balance but instead use the presets. If you juke the white balance
around by balancing manually through various colored gels, you can make the XL1
look very, very good--pretty much any way you want. For anyone to complain
about the "Canon orange look," evidently including the XL1 for damnation,
indicates a lack of familiarity with manual white balancing and how easily the
orange cast can be alleviated on the XL1. Get a swatch book of gels and have
some real fun with the look. Don't know if it's as easy to get the orange out
of the GL1.
But even set up right, the Canons just are not in the same league with the
VX-2000 or PD150, which are so good it's almost scary for cameras at their
respective price points.
But is this really a fair comparison? We're comparing Sony's second generation
pieces to Canon's first generation equipment. Sony and Canon were at rough
parity throughout generation one--VX-1000 vs. XL1. Of course, now Sony's
ahead. But what will the second generation Canons be like? Will the XL2 raise
the quality bar even higher?
Tip
That's enough to kill it for me.
Neuman - Ruether
Hmmm...., "mebbe" to all the above...;-)
I find Canon owners on the 'net generally less
honestly critical of the shortcomings of Canon
Mini-DV camcorders, and more eager to "jibe"
(or worse) those who point out their faults
than Sony owners. Curious that there is a need
to defend the virtuousness of a camcorder model,
when all that is needed is an acceptance of the
existence of obvious faults. No camcorder is
perfect, but some "Canon-people" got downright
uppity when I first posted the reviews at
www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
and pointed out the Canon flaws - and accused
me of all sorts of evil doings. ;-) But I also
pointed out the shortcomings of Sony products,
with hardly a wimper of protest from the Sony
owners...;-)
Curious.
Back in my photo days, and now in my video days,
I find the usual "reviews" annoyingly replete
with gushy descriptions of appearance and
features (easily obtainable from the mfgrs.
ad literature), but with little coverage of
performance and use issues, both positive AND
negative. Since I have no advertising revenue
to protect on my web page, I'm free to offer
what ought to be an appreciated service: one
person's (possibly objective...;-) view of a
range of Mini-DV camcorder models. I did the
same with a large number of Nikkor lenses
I've had experience with - and rarely do I get
complaints from a lens owner that I didn't rate
high enough a particular lens he owned (that
I didn't like). As you have rightly pointed out,
much of this is subjective - but as I point out,
much of it is not; I recognize that some people
may actually prefer an orange tint added to
everything (and white halos, lower resolution,
more than average stairstepping, and a mic
sound balance that is offensive to this audio
nut), but these characteristics are, in
objective terms (if the ideal is a neutral-color,
sharp, smooth image and good sound), faults - and
a reviewer should point them out (and find it
curious when objections are raised when that
is done...). People are free to buy and use
whatever they want, whether I happen to like
it or not, but I feel free to point out my
findings in these NGs when I disagree with
what is posted (as others are free to disagree
with me... - but I hope that that disagreement
is in a form that is as reasonable, and based
on first-hand experience, as I try for in
my posts...;-)
Michael
I think that a lot of GL1 owners bought the camera partly because of the
size and looks. It does look impressive/professional (apart from the color)
and it may be a status symbol for some - and these users are probably more
likely to be offended - especially when something cheaper, smaller and in
many - but not all -respects better comes up.
The VX2000 is a lot more annonymous - at least until I add my ME67 mike on
top :-)
Today I would buy the PD-150 though - but I do like the stereo mike of the
VX2000..
Regards
Michael
bvandyk
debate. While I chose the VX-2000 myself, and love it, I think many
users here would indeed be quite happy with the Canon, because both
products have raised the bar considerably. We're talking about very,
very particular differences here, though we all know that both cameras
produce some excellent results by any standard. I was also impressed
with the TRV900 which may be the best "camera for the money" that I
looked at. In any case, just want to say that to users like myself
without your extensive experience and analytic tools, this kind of
discussion is valuable and very useful in making a decision we won't
regret later.
I'm not saying it guarrantees the right decision-- but I certainly felt
like I understood all the critical issues before I went shopping and was
able to make an intelligent choice. Having reread these issues here, I
remember I considered the ability to set audio gain manually was very,
very important, and, from all the information I read all over the web,
including David's site, it seemed to me that a majority of
well-articulated opinion went with the Sony.
Anyway, I'm pleased with my choice and hope to continue to remain
open-minded about the product I didn't choose.
Chris Hurd
Neuman - Ruether wrote...
>
> I find Canon owners on the 'net generally less honestly
> critical of the shortcomings of Canon Mini-DV camcorders,
> and more eager to "jibe" (or worse) those who point out
> their faults than Sony owners.
That's because these Canon owners are getting beautiful
video from their camcorders. You're asking them to admit
to shortcomings they have never seen and as far as they're
concerned, don't even exist. What kind of reaction did
you expect? ;-)
> Curious that there is a need to defend the virtuousness
> of a camcorder model, when all that is needed is an
> acceptance of the existence of obvious faults.
I don't "defend" hardware. I don't give a damn about
hardware, really. If I'm defending anything, it's the
people who use this hardware. The point I'm making
is that there are professional shooters out there with
just as much or more experience as you who love the
images these cameras produce. For you to ask for an
"acceptance of obvious faults" is to ask these people
to see things only your way. That ain't going to happen.
David, your so-called "obvious faults" haven't stopped
these cameras from becoming very popular and selling
very well. If they were as poor as you're making them
out to be, then no amount of corporate marketing could
save their sales. Yet plenty of people buy these things
and use them to make beautiful pictures. The GL1 in
particular has quite a loyal user base of very happy
customers who really love the video it puts out. A
*lot* of these folks are pro shooters and I think
they know what is and isn't a good looking image.
I'm not coming down on you; I'm just saying that
there's a large number of people who know what
they're doing who strongly disagree with you.
> No camcorder is perfect, but some "Canon-people" got
> downright uppity when I first posted the reviews at
> www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
> and pointed out the Canon flaws - and accused me
> of all sorts of evil doings. ;-)
Perhaps it's because your review was remarkably
unlike their own experiences with the same product?
> But I also pointed out the shortcomings of Sony products,
> with hardly a wimper of protest from the Sony owners...;-)
I don't know... perhaps your writing and critical analysis
skills have improved, and your findings are more in line
with the experience of others?
> I recognize that some people may actually prefer an orange
> tint added to everything
There is a subtle yet distinct difference between Sony and Canon
images, but it's nothing as extreme as what you're describing.
> ... I feel free to point out my findings in these NGs when I
> disagree with what is posted (as others are free to disagree
> with me... - but I hope that that disagreement is in a form
> that is as reasonable, and based on first-hand experience,
> as I try for in my posts...;-)
It is.
One thing I really like about you is that we can have a
debate of this nature without having it fall into a typical
usenet flame-fest. I enjoy healthy debate; I like a good
argument, but only with someone who is well-mannered
and civil about everything and willing to make intelligent
points and counter-points. Far too often on usenet, it's
at the level of "Brand X sucks! Brand Y rules!" and
I avoid dealing with that mentality at all costs. I still
think you're a candidate for a bottle of fine Merlot;
just hope we have the opportunity for it sometime.
Neuman - Ruether
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
>Howdy from Texas,
>Neuman - Ruether wrote...
>> I find Canon owners on the 'net generally less honestly
>> critical of the shortcomings of Canon Mini-DV camcorders,
>> and more eager to "jibe" (or worse) those who point out
>> their faults than Sony owners.
>That's because these Canon owners are getting beautiful
>video from their camcorders. You're asking them to admit
>to shortcomings they have never seen and as far as they're
>concerned, don't even exist. What kind of reaction did
>you expect? ;-)
A sudden epiphany when the truth is revealed...!!!
;-), ;-), ;-) Most people are quite uncritical of
the finer points of any area - but those whose work
is intimately connected with the image-quality of
their tools I would think would be more discerning
than the average user, yet this is often not true.
(Thus, my wine comments...;-)
For those who do care about some of the finer points,
the information is available...;-)
(I found in photography, too, that pros are
often totally unaware of some of the basics of
image-making - not that that knowledge is always
necessary for good work to be done... [how's that
for a mind-tongue-twister sentence?;-])
>> Curious that there is a need to defend the virtuousness
>> of a camcorder model, when all that is needed is an
>> acceptance of the existence of obvious faults.
>I don't "defend" hardware. I don't give a damn about
>hardware, really. If I'm defending anything, it's the
>people who use this hardware. The point I'm making
>is that there are professional shooters out there with
>just as much or more experience as you who love the
>images these cameras produce. For you to ask for an
>"acceptance of obvious faults" is to ask these people
>to see things only your way. That ain't going to happen.
It is easy to ignore these picture faults - but if
one is choosing "the best camera for X dollars",
then these things may be worth knowing...
As the saying goes, "An artist can use a box-Brownie,
but an amateur needs the best equipment available". ;-)
>David, your so-called "obvious faults" haven't stopped
>these cameras from becoming very popular and selling
>very well. If they were as poor as you're making them
>out to be, then no amount of corporate marketing could
>save their sales. Yet plenty of people buy these things
>and use them to make beautiful pictures. The GL1 in
>particular has quite a loyal user base of very happy
>customers who really love the video it puts out. A
>*lot* of these folks are pro shooters and I think
>they know what is and isn't a good looking image.
Yes - but see my comments above...
It isn't a matter of "terrible" vs. "perfect, but
of, say 65% good vs. 75% good - given the choice
between these levels, for about the same price,
why not go for the 10% better...? ;-)
>I'm not coming down on you; I'm just saying that
>there's a large number of people who know what
>they're doing who strongly disagree with you.
Or may mnot have considered the issues (which
in the end may not be very important...;-).
Most people are satisfied with less than the best,
and once owned, become used-to/loyal-to it.
Some of us are more critical - as it appears you
are with wine...;-)
>> No camcorder is perfect, but some "Canon-people" got
>> downright uppity when I first posted the reviews at
>> www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> and pointed out the Canon flaws - and accused me
>> of all sorts of evil doings. ;-)
>Perhaps it's because your review was remarkably
>unlike their own experiences with the same product?
But what I pointed out as faults are easily observed
by anyone willing to look... Some people are not
willing to look, especially if they are invested in
something financially and/or mentally...;-)
>> But I also pointed out the shortcomings of Sony products,
>> with hardly a wimper of protest from the Sony owners...;-)
>I don't know... perhaps your writing and critical analysis
>skills have improved, and your findings are more in line
>with the experience of others?
Yuh, "Sony good; Canon bad"..??? ;-), ;-), ;-)
>> I recognize that some people may actually prefer an orange
>> tint added to everything
>There is a subtle yet distinct difference between Sony and Canon
>images, but it's nothing as extreme as what you're describing.
??? I think it is...
Again, these things are easily observed...
I used to be involved in audio (talk about perceptions
and beliefs vs. reality!!! ;-), and found in designing and
building gear how perceptually important VERY minor errors
in frequency-response were (whole tomes are written about
the supposed qualities of this or that piece of audio gear,
when most of the differences boil down to minor
frequency-response differences - I call audio-mania "the
art of applying 1/10th-decibel changes to 10-decibel
errors"...;-).
>> ... I feel free to point out my findings in these NGs when I
>> disagree with what is posted (as others are free to disagree
>> with me... - but I hope that that disagreement is in a form
>> that is as reasonable, and based on first-hand experience,
>> as I try for in my posts...;-)
>It is.
>
>One thing I really like about you is that we can have a
>debate of this nature without having it fall into a typical
>usenet flame-fest. I enjoy healthy debate; I like a good
>argument, but only with someone who is well-mannered
>and civil about everything and willing to make intelligent
>points and counter-points.
Likewise - a good arguement can work to move toward truth,
if handled well (always keeping in mind its overall minor
importance in the "big picture"...;-).
>Far too often on usenet, it's
>at the level of "Brand X sucks! Brand Y rules!" and
>I avoid dealing with that mentality at all costs.
I left the videouniversity VX-1000 discussion board
due to the obnoxiousness of one frequenter there - he
had no concept of how to conduct an arguement, and
always made it personal.
You are fun to have exchanges with, even if neither
of us convinces the other...
>I still
>think you're a candidate for a bottle of fine Merlot;
>just hope we have the opportunity for it sometime.
Thanks, but it really would be wasted on me...;-)
(Really! I'm into still and motion imaging [and
the high-quality gear needed to do it], and audio
[I like to just see, and listen], so for me, I would
not be able to note the fine differences [uh-huh! ;-]
between a good Meranon and a good Zinfanony. ;-)
Thanks, though!
bvandyk
Chris Hurd wrote:
> David, your so-called "obvious faults" haven't stopped
> these cameras from becoming very popular and selling
> very well. If they were as poor as you're making them
> out to be, then no amount of corporate marketing could
> save their sales.
With all due respect, Chris-- and I did note your points very
seriously-- I have to disagree with this one point. If it were true
that "quality" and virtue prevail in the marketplace, I suggest we'd all
be watching videos at home on Beta instead of VHS and we'd all be
running Macs or Geosworks or OS/2 instead of the worst operating system
of it's era, Windows. Vegas and Pintos sold pretty well for a while.
Real ice cream doesn't show up in your supermarket freezers anymore--
ever taste real ice cream, made from milk instead of water? Why did
people accept lousy ice cream? Why didn't they complain when it was
introduced? Because most people really aren't very thoughtful about
those things? Because they didn't care? Because they really didn't
notice the difference?
In short, I think it's quite possible-- if not even likely-- that
inferior technologies can prevail, at least for a while. Admittedly,
people who buy in the range of Canon GL or XL or Sony VX are probably
above average-- but I know of professional photoraphers who have barely
heard of "photoshop" and I knew English teachers-- lots and lots of
them-- that didn't teach any novels written after 1971. It wasn't that
they rejected modern writing (though some did)-- it's just that they had
never heard of them, or read about them, or read their books. A lot of
people, even professionals, tend to stay with what they already know,
rather than newer technologies.
Chris Hurd
bvandyk wrote...
>
> With all due respect, Chris-- and I did note your points very
> seriously-- I have to disagree with this one point. If it were true
> that "quality" and virtue prevail in the marketplace, I suggest we'd
> all be watching videos at home on Beta instead of VHS and...
Eh, let's hold it right there before we go off starting platform
wars, shall we?
I see what you're saying, but I'm asking you and David and
everybody to realize that Canon produces cameras that a lot
of folks have really fallen in love with for good reasons. In terms
of quality products, Canon and Sony together are the top
manufacturers in this "prosumer" realm of DV camcorders.
There is some real junk out there, take for instance the
Sharp DV camcorder, can't remember the model number.
It's a piece of junk, but it has managed to penetrate the
market. I think that's the kind of stuff you're talking about.
What I was saying is that if the Canons were junk, they
wouldn't have such a devoted group of happy buyers. I
didn't mean to make any sweeping comments about the
power of marketing in general. If we limit our discussion
to just these cameras -- and not the entire history of
economics -- then in the end, it's how good the product
is that counts. And a lot of people think that Canon
camcorders are great products.
> ever taste real ice cream, made from milk instead of water?
When I was a kid, on summer evenings we'd go to my aunt
and uncle's house, and my cousins and I would take turns at
the crank of an old ice cream machine, dropping in rock salt
as neccessary. Yeah, I've had real ice cream before.
> In short, I think it's quite possible-- if not even likely-- that
> inferior technologies can prevail, at least for a while. Admittedly,
> people who buy in the range of Canon GL or XL or Sony VX
> are probably above average--
Above average in income level, sure. They have to be, at the
prices were talking about.
This may enrage some people, but I'll stand by it firmly: a close
analogy of Sony and Canon is the PC and Mac thing. Sony is
huge, sells more, has deep market penetration. Sony is the "PC"
of the camcorder world. Canon is much smaller, does not have
the market share that Sony does, has a product that behaves
differently from Sony's, and has a devoted base of loyal
users who tend to get kind of fanatical about their cameras.
Canon is the "Mac" of the camcorder world.
Anybody want to argue that one?
Neuman - Ruether
<ch...@mediadesign.net> wrote:
[....]
>This may enrage some people, but I'll stand by it firmly: a close
>analogy of Sony and Canon is the PC and Mac thing. Sony is
>huge, sells more, has deep market penetration. Sony is the "PC"
>of the camcorder world. Canon is much smaller, does not have
>the market share that Sony does, has a product that behaves
>differently from Sony's, and has a devoted base of loyal
>users who tend to get kind of fanatical about their cameras.
>Canon is the "Mac" of the camcorder world.
>
>Anybody want to argue that one?
Oooops!!!!
REAL bad anology!
Or, maybe a very appropriate one...;-)
Never could figure out why people pay too much for
inflexible, un-updatable, slow-for-video systems
like the Macs - but point out the shortcomings, and
watch the fur fly! ;-) People LIKE plastic goo on
the cases and good salesmanship - more than function
and flexibility...! Heck, I even had one person try
to argue that the MUCH longer render times for FCP
on a Mac compared with Premiere on even a cheap PC
was an advantage (gave him time to think...! ;-).
Talk 'bout religion! ;-) Brand-loyalty is often
not "dentable" by such things as logic and
practicality - the choice is often based more on
emotional appeal than reason...;-) Thus, white
Canon cases and warm-colored pictures (with
"halos" - what could be more angelic? ;-), and
green-and-white plastic case-goo and neat tiny
cubes (never mind that a raft of peripherals must
then be attached, 'cuz the case is too small...;-)
sell better than having cameras with sharper
images, less stairstepping, and better sound - and
computers with lotsa open bays and slots, easily
upgraded CPUs, actual handy floppy drives that
come WITH the computer and are accessible from
the front, not the back, "real" CD drawers instead
of slots), etc...;-)
But, I rant......;-)
Chris Hurd
Neuman - Ruether wrote...
>
> But, I rant......;-)
Sooo, David... guess you're a PC guy,
eh? You don't have to answer that one.
lawr...@mac.com
> >This may enrage some people, but I'll stand by it firmly: a close
> >analogy of Sony and Canon is the PC and Mac thing. Sony is
> >huge, sells more, has deep market penetration. Sony is the
"PC"
> >of the camcorder world. Canon is much smaller, does not have
> >the market share that Sony does, has a product that behaves
> >differently from Sony's, and has a devoted base of loyal
> >users who tend to get kind of fanatical about their cameras.
> >Canon is the "Mac" of the camcorder world.
What I interpret from this message is that Chris is saying just
because it's popular, doesn't mean it must be the best. It usually
means it's the cheapest! You find more Chevys than you do
BMW's, but that doesn't make them better. You usually get what
you pay for one way or another. Same with PC's.
What I can't figure out is why particular big brand names have such
followings. I find that fear and lack of education attribute to the
"mob mentality" of insisting that it's a superior product. Take Bose
speakers for example. Do they really sound twice as good as
cheap JVC speakers and therefore justify an inflated price? Or is it
that Bose has a superior marketing strategy by INSISTING that
every dealer set up their surround speakers in an appropriate
display? NEWS FLASH: If you set up the JVC speakers in the
same damn display, you will get very similar results!
If you have a Chevy truck, you better have a Calvin sticker in the
back window pissing on a Ford. If you own a PC, you better hate
the Mac. If you want to own the best video camera you better buy a
Sony. Can't we all just get along?
David, I appreciate all of your input and information. I wish it didn't
have such a bias tone because I not sure how much to trust your
judgement due to your emotion. I'm just looking for some facts that
I won't find in the brochures from Canon or Sony. Since you are so
quick to point your finger and tell people when they are wrong, I
thought I would point out of few things to you regarding your
comments on another obvious bias. I'm just trying to educate you
and a few other lurkers who may share your dismay for the Mac...
> Never could figure out why people pay too much for
> inflexible, un-updatable, slow-for-video systems
> like the Macs
First of all, as I stated earlier, you get what you pay for. If you want
quality components and quality software, you buy a Mac. They are
very upgradeable, (same hard drives and RAM that your PC takes)
very flexible, (they share most aftermarket add on components that
have USB or FireWire. (which Apple invented)) And they may be a
touch slower for video editing, but they are superior in every day
productivity compared to any PC running twice the Mhz. Do you use
your PC for video editing only? I suppose if you did, you wouldn't
have so much time invested preaching Sony superiority. Yes I edit
video, but I also surf the net and have about a dozen applications
open at any given time.
> People LIKE plastic goo on
> the cases and good salesmanship - more than function
> and flexibility...!
Do you have a problem with colors other than beige and gray?
What boring ass colors. Hey, let's start painting every car the same
color! Their is nothing wrong with giving people a choice and
moving away from institutional computer design. They must be
doing something right... sales have hit record highs, and many PC
platforms are trying to mimick their success. (including Compaq
and eMachines.)
> Talk 'bout religion! ;-) Brand-loyalty is often
> not "dentable" by such things as logic and
> practicality - the choice is often based more on
> emotional appeal than reason...;-)
Noo... the decision is to run an efficient operating system and
remain productive throughout the day. The superior colors and
design happen to be what you get as a bonus.
> green-and-white plastic case-goo and neat tiny
> cubes (never mind that a raft of peripherals must
> then be attached, 'cuz the case is too small...;-)
Are you really so blind to see that this is ONE line that Apple offers,
and they offer it for companies who DEMAND image to be part of
their surrounding? The cube is made and marketed to executives,
CEO's and advertising agencies who choose (or need) to have
impressive elaborate surroundings. If you would ever look to see
how much the cube DOES for the amount of space it takes up, you
might actually appreciate it. Aren't you wondering why it won so
many design awards last year?
> computers with lotsa open bays and slots, easily
> upgraded CPUs, actual handy floppy drives that
> come WITH the computer and are accessible from
> the front, not the back, "real" CD drawers instead
> of slots), etc...;-)
If you want a Mac that has 5 expansion slots, Bays for additional
ATA 100 and/or SCSI drives, an easily upgradeable CPU, an AGP
graphics card, up to 1.5 GB of RAM, a built in CD-RW/DVD
authoring drive, built in FireWire and USB, built in 10/100/1000
network card, and a case that opens in 3 seconds... then you buy a
G4 tower.
As for floppies... who the hell uses those things still? How much
video can you put on one of those?! Mac boldly ditched that
outdated technology two years ago and replaced it with the 100 MB
Zip drive. (Which can read both Mac and PC format.)
Besides, Mac OWNS the printing, graphic design and advertising
markets. Some of the high-end programs we run are
QuarkXpress, Adobe Illustrator, Pagemaker and especially
Photoshop which all run faster on Macs. We pay more because we
expect more. Consequently, we get more.
Don't take that Mhz stuff too seriously. I think Pentium took notes
from Bose. Their is much more to a Mac than meets the average
consumer eye.
Taken from Apples web site:
"The Power Mac G4 is a phenomenally powerful computer. This
power is especially evident when it performs processor-intensive
tasks in creative and scientific applications. In fact, at speeds of
5.5 gigaflops, the new 733MHz PowerPC G4 processor with
Velocity Engine is up to 57% faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4."
> But, I rant......;-)
Yes you do.
Last thought: David, if your computer starts freezing up and you
need to call tech support, who do you call? Microsoft or the
hardware manufacturer? How many minutes or hours will you
invest before someone figures out a solution? I know if I ever had
a problem, I only need to know one 800 number.
A loyal Mac fan,
Lawrance
Richard Smedley
because the PC is a better machine -- it's not. But the fact is I have to
have a machine that will run the business software (crappy though it is) my
customers use. Too bad, but that's just the way it is. If Billy Boy had
decided to go with the Apple OS instead of DOS, then the story today might
have been much different.
Now as for the Sony and Canon. My contention is not that the Sony VX2000 is
better than the Canon XL1 or GL1, just that some people (whom I won't
name -- you know who you are) simply can't look at the comparison
objectively. Maybe the VX2000 is ultimately better. I really don't know.
All I know is I get fantastic video out of my XL1 and GL1s (I have 2) and
that's a fact, not an opinion. If the Sony VX2000 is really _that_ much
better, then maybe a couple of years from now I'll take a second look. But
until then, get off your high horse and just admit that they're both great
cams and have a _real_ ice cream wine float!
Richard
(BTW, I use frame mode on both the XL1 and GL1 almost exclusively, and
couldn't live without it! Take that VX2000!)
<lawr...@mac.com> wrote in message news:967vki$cst$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Neuman - Ruether
[...]
>What I can't figure out is why particular big brand names have such
>followings. I find that fear and lack of education attribute to the
>"mob mentality" of insisting that it's a superior product.
This is, um, kinda what I was trying to point out, though
somewhat indirectly...
>Take Bose
>speakers for example. Do they really sound twice as good as
>cheap JVC speakers and therefore justify an inflated price? Or is it
>that Bose has a superior marketing strategy by INSISTING that
>every dealer set up their surround speakers in an appropriate
>display?
[...]
Bose is a good example - it has been a bad joke in
audio circles for 30 years (it sells well, despite
its poor performance - due to good sales hype...).
This is kinda what I try to counter...;-)
>David, I appreciate all of your input and information. I wish it didn't
>have such a bias tone because I not sure how much to trust your
>judgement due to your emotion. I'm just looking for some facts that
>I won't find in the brochures from Canon or Sony.
Hmmmm...
I have difficulty understanding the above, since I never
saythings like "XYZ is junk", and "RST" is perfect"...
Read what I say, which is essentially: "NOTHING is perfect,
here are the plusses and minuses I found... Go check these
out for yourself, since they are there for everyone to
observe". Why do you interpret this as biased and
emotional...? Perhaps you are misinterpreting things said
in fun, in exchanges with Cris Hurd...?
>Since you are so
>quick to point your finger and tell people when they are wrong, I
>thought I would point out of few things to you regarding your
>comments on another obvious bias. I'm just trying to educate you
>and a few other lurkers who may share your dismay for the Mac...
Ah-hah! Now I understand...! ;-)
I have offended your brand....;-)
>> Never could figure out why people pay too much for
>> inflexible, un-updatable, slow-for-video systems
>> like the Macs
>First of all, as I stated earlier, you get what you pay for. If you want
>quality components and quality software, you buy a Mac.
Or build your own PC, selecting the very best, and most
compatible parts, at a considerable savings...
>They are
>very upgradeable, (same hard drives and RAM that your PC takes)
Uh - my pet name for most Macs is "future boat-anchors",
since, being very integrated designs (with the advantages
that implies, but also with the rigidity that that implies),
it is hard to rip out a MB, pop in another, and go on to
the next generation of CPUs using the same case and
peripherals. Ever try to add four HDs INSIDE the case
of a G-4 - or an internal CD-writer, film-scanner, AND
DVD-player? Or a bunch of extra cards? To an iMac???
To a Cube??? ;-) Can't, 'cuz when you buy a Mac, you buy
a relatively fixed-function "chunk", not a basis for
building it into whatever you want,at least without lotsa
extra boxes attached - and when it comes time to do a basic
update, out goes the G-3/iMac/Cube to make way for the
next-level whiz-bang, also without basic upgradeability...
(Tell me you can convert a G-3 to a G-4 - maybe I missed
something...;-)
>very flexible, (they share most aftermarket add on components that
>have USB or FireWire. (which Apple invented)) And they may be a
>touch slower for video editing, but they are superior in every day
>productivity compared to any PC running twice the Mhz.
But, an 800MHz CPU for the PC is under $200, with the
1-GHz not much more than $250 - how much is the 800/1-gig
for the Mac...? Or even the dual-450...? ;-)
>Do you use
>your PC for video editing only? I suppose if you did, you wouldn't
>have so much time invested preaching Sony superiority. Yes I edit
>video, but I also surf the net and have about a dozen applications
>open at any given time.
Likewise. I also do web design, fiddle with music on it,
etc.
>> People LIKE plastic goo on
>> the cases and good salesmanship - more than function
>> and flexibility...!
>Do you have a problem with colors other than beige and gray?
>What boring ass colors. Hey, let's start painting every car the same
>color! Their is nothing wrong with giving people a choice and
>moving away from institutional computer design. They must be
>doing something right... sales have hit record highs, and many PC
>platforms are trying to mimick their success. (including Compaq
>and eMachines.)
Yep! Bose "direct-reflecting" all over again...;-)
Color sells. I have no objection to color (though I do
when the colored goo makes the box bigger than it needs
to be, just for the sake of salesmanship...;-).
A computer is a tool, not a stream-lined toaster! ;-)
I think most of the Mac-copycat designs are just plain
ugly - at least Mac made the superfluous plastic goo
kinda pretty...! ;-)
>> Talk 'bout religion! ;-) Brand-loyalty is often
>> not "dentable" by such things as logic and
>> practicality - the choice is often based more on
>> emotional appeal than reason...;-)
See above, for more evidence of this...;-)., ;-), ;-)
>Noo... the decision is to run an efficient operating system and
>remain productive throughout the day. The superior colors and
>design happen to be what you get as a bonus.
Yep! ;-)
>> green-and-white plastic case-goo and neat tiny
>> cubes (never mind that a raft of peripherals must
>> then be attached, 'cuz the case is too small...;-)
>Are you really so blind to see that this is ONE line that Apple offers,
>and they offer it for companies who DEMAND image to be part of
>their surrounding? The cube is made and marketed to executives,
>CEO's and advertising agencies who choose (or need) to have
>impressive elaborate surroundings. If you would ever look to see
>how much the cube DOES for the amount of space it takes up, you
>might actually appreciate it. Aren't you wondering why it won so
>many design awards last year?
No - I consider a computer a tool, not an aesthetic
object... How "neat" is the cube (quite neat, in its own
right) when multitudes of modules are wired to it to make
it useful...? ;-) Heck, a car consisting of a chromed
engine and a pair of nice bucket seats might make a
nifty design "statement", but when you need to bolt a set
of wheels, some steering gear, and a few other things
to it to make it useable for anything but sitting in,
where is the "design statement" then...? Kinda silly,
really...
>> computers with lotsa open bays and slots, easily
>> upgraded CPUs, actual handy floppy drives that
>> come WITH the computer and are accessible from
>> the front, not the back, "real" CD drawers instead
>> of slots), etc...;-)
>If you want a Mac that has 5 expansion slots, Bays for additional
>ATA 100 and/or SCSI drives, an easily upgradeable CPU, an AGP
>graphics card, up to 1.5 GB of RAM, a built in CD-RW/DVD
>authoring drive, built in FireWire and USB, built in 10/100/1000
>network card, and a case that opens in 3 seconds... then you buy a
>G4 tower.
Ah. Funny, all that fits in a mid-tower PC case, around
$50, including 300-watt power supply...
>As for floppies... who the hell uses those things still? How much
>video can you put on one of those?! Mac boldly ditched that
>outdated technology two years ago and replaced it with the 100 MB
>Zip drive. (Which can read both Mac and PC format.)
I've seen a LOT of Macs without Zip drives (and without any
means of removing and transporting data short of sending it
in email...). The floppy is dirt-cheap, universal (outside
the Mac world), and still the primary means of storing and
transporting small date files. Dropping it was silly (but
mebbe its presence made executing cute "plastic-goo" designs
harder? ;-)
>Besides, Mac OWNS the printing, graphic design and advertising
>markets. Some of the high-end programs we run are
>QuarkXpress, Adobe Illustrator, Pagemaker and especially
>Photoshop which all run faster on Macs. We pay more because we
>expect more. Consequently, we get more.
Mac is the standard in publishing - and for consistency,
remains so, but not 'cuz it is better... BTW, I've had
Mac people come to me for color-corrections, since on their
low-contrast/saturation Mac displays, they couldn't see
subtle color differences... After looking at their displays
(more recent ones appear to be better), I wondered how they
could do anything but B&W graphics...!;-) Which reminds me
(a subjective thing, but...;-) - don't you Mac folks get
tired of those crude old screen graphics that are B&W line
drawings? I prefer nice, colored, 3-D screen graphics
myself...;-)
>Don't take that Mhz stuff too seriously. I think Pentium took notes
>from Bose. Their is much more to a Mac than meets the average
>consumer eye.
Still lookin'...;-)
>Taken from Apples web site:
>"The Power Mac G4 is a phenomenally powerful computer. This
>power is especially evident when it performs processor-intensive
>tasks in creative and scientific applications. In fact, at speeds of
>5.5 gigaflops, the new 733MHz PowerPC G4 processor with
>Velocity Engine is up to 57% faster than a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4."
We HAVE been talking about ad hype vs. reality, now haven't
we...??? ;-), ;-), ;-)
>> But, I rant......;-)
>Yes you do.
Yes, I was - but tongue-in-cheek...! ;-) (Or, perhaps
I should have been using these, instead: ;^)
Buried in the comments above is some truth - but most
of the above is meant as chiding, so don't get too
bent out of shape over it! Even though I'm making
some fun of what you are saying, since on the one hand
you are agreeing that some things are sold though hype
and brand-loyalty, not value-for-money, and on the other
hand you are also displaying some symptoms of
"Mac-religion", all of this basically is in fun - the world
will comntinue to spin regardless of whether Mac is better
than PC, Canon is better than Sony, Apogee is better than
Bose, you are right and I am wrong - it is best to keep
all this in perspective. But it is also useful to learn
to split ad-hype from observation, and not to blame the
observer if the observations are counter to ones
beliefs...;-) Criss Hurd and I were having a fun exchange
within which it was possible to air differences of opinion.
Everything said may have been relevant, but not meant
necessarily strictly literally. It is good to see the
difference... When I state an observation, I mean what I
say, and that should be obvious; when I state an opinion,
that should also be obvious; when I'm making a joke - well,
maybe that is less obvious...;-)
>Last thought: David, if your computer starts freezing up and you
>need to call tech support, who do you call? Microsoft or the
>hardware manufacturer? How many minutes or hours will you
>invest before someone figures out a solution? I know if I ever had
>a problem, I only need to know one 800 number.
No problem - I call out, in a loud voice, "BOB, IT DOESN'T
WORK...!", and he comes immediately...;-) But, seriously,
one advantage of builting PCs is that you have some idea
of what the "guts" are in a computer (and how incredibly
cheap and easily-replaced all of the parts are...), instead
of seeing the computer as an esoteric, unknowable,
pretty-plastic-covered, design-award-winning "object"...;-)
>A loyal Mac fan,
Obviously...;-)
But, again, take the above (mostly) as friendly chiding for
accusing me of what you may be guilty of...;-)
Macs are fine, as are Canon camcorders (though I may find
them less-good values than PCs and Sony 3-chippers for
most purposes...;-).
[Disclaimer: the last statement was an opinion! ;-]
Neuman - Ruether
<rsme...@webzone.net> wrote:
[...]
>Now as for the Sony and Canon. My contention is not that the Sony VX2000 is
>better than the Canon XL1 or GL1, just that some people (whom I won't
>name -- you know who you are) simply can't look at the comparison
>objectively. Maybe the VX2000 is ultimately better. I really don't know.
>All I know is I get fantastic video out of my XL1 and GL1s (I have 2) and
>that's a fact, not an opinion. If the Sony VX2000 is really _that_ much
>better, then maybe a couple of years from now I'll take a second look. But
>until then, get off your high horse and just admit that they're both great
>cams and have a _real_ ice cream wine float!
????
The above makes no logical sense...;-)
From the above, I take it you are satisfied with the
XL-1/GL-1, have not compared them with the VX-2000,
but are annoyed that I have (as have others) done so
and report that, in various quite specific ways, the
VX-2000 picture is better... I (and others) did not say
the Canon picture was bad; I (and others) did not say
the VX-2000 picture is perfect - what we did say was
that, in several specific characteristics important
to some of us (resolution, color-neutrality, relative
freedom from negative picture aspects like stairstepping
and contrasty-edge white "halos", good low-light ability),
the VX-2000 is superior. Given that the GL-1 is close to
the same price (and the XL-1 is more expensive, larger,
heavier, and has some real lens-control issues), how
can you fault us for coming to certain logical
conclusions about preferences (noting that if
considerations like 20:1 zooming range and PS-mode
are of paramount importance to you, then your
conclusions are skewed by this and would logically
be different. No problem...;-)
Don't blame the messenger, though, for simply reporting
observations (and drawing conclusions based on them)
that you don't like...;-)
Richard Smedley
just said "you know who you are." I _have_ compared the Sony VX2000 in a
"brief encounter" and don't see much difference. If you do, then buy Sony.
Richard
"Neuman - Ruether" <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3a893645...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Richard Smedley
neutrality problems, stair-stepping, etc" and I guess I need new glasses
because I fail to see these problems in my Canons. I'm not saying you
didn't see these problems, just that I don't. And yes, the progressive mode
is important to me. I shoot with it almost exclusively. The
interchangeable lens capability is also important to me as I shoot
occassionally with my 1200mm Meade spotting scope. I mention this because
you and others gloss over this capability like it's not really important,
when in fact it _can_ be. Maybe it's not to you, but it's worth noting if
you're going to compare apples to oranges.
Richard
"Neuman - Ruether" <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:3a893645...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Mark Murphy
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."
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
Neuman - Ruether
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.ferrario.com/ruether/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...
Alexander Ibrahim
attention to your camera and lighting technique than the
technology.
Progressive mode will deliver a better "film" quality. This is
because you get closer to the poor motion redition of film, but
you get images that are not interlaced. If you want to make DV
"films" then a Canon XL-1 is the best Choice followed by the
GL-1.
That said, you have to learn about painting with light. How are
you going to use color ? Black is a very important color in film,
so pay close attention to any proposed camera's signal to noise
ratio, which tells you how much crap will be in areas that are
supposed to be just black.
Also, forget low light camera features, they are USELESS to you
as a filmmaker. You need to shoot at exposures that maximize your
contrast ratio...meaning your darks need to be DARK while your
brights are BRIGHT. You will use a lot of light, and you will
have to learn to direct it.
You also have to learn how to move the camera...what speed to pan
at, how to track and dolly etc. Using a progressive mode camera
will help in this regard, because if you move it like a video
camera your motion rendition will go to $h1t. You can really make
your audience nauseous if you aren't careful. Really. Camera
motion is far more important to the "film look" than any
technical features of film may be.
Also, you have to learn how to SELECT camera angles. Most people
just point the camera at what they want make it fit in the frame
and shoot. That is OK for news but, cinematographically, very
bad. You have to pick your angles in a way that moves the story
forward, and that provides visual interest and depth. Depth is
HUGE. You have to convice your audience that all these 2D images
you are showing them really show a 3D world. Learn to pick camera
angles that give a sense of depth. Depth applies to your visual
field as well as subjects.
When you shoot you have to know when you will have to cut later.
I don't mean yelling cut on the set, but rather where you are
going to edit. This is hugely important, because you have to make
sure you get "coverage" from all your set-ups. Here is a good
book for that:
http://www.zenera.com/books/grammaroffilm.html
It isn't easy to deliver a good film quality product. If you are
starting with DV you already have a mark against you. Your image
quality and contrast ratio are an issue. Your color pallette is
restricted. You have to be even better to get around it.
Make sure you learn from the masters. When is the last time you
saw a Hitchcock movie ? Go get the restored Vertigo, do it NOW.
Lawrence of Arabia ? Blade Runner ? You know what to do
Did you see Apocalypse Now ? Go get it NOW. While you are at it
the Cinematographer fo that film, Vittorio Storaro is profiled
and honored in the current American Cinematographer. When Kodak
takes a full page ad out saying, "You are THE MAN," you have made
it.
And please, while you still can, go see Crouching Tiger, Hidden
Dragon. NOW!! It is a beautiful film. Every frame is art. Classic
Chinese mythological romance.
Why are you still reading this...what did I tell you ? GO!!!!
Still reading ? OK fine. Two words:
Ansel Adams
What ? That is still photography. SO WHAT ?!? You can still learn
composition from Ansel. You want every frame to be art right ?
If you aren't excited about making every frame art, you aren't
ready to be a director of photography for a film type project, or
a director for that matter. You have to be driven to tell the
story with pictures. Believe me, only that drive will get you
through on occasion.
If you just want to tell a story, write a book. If you don't have
a story...you have nothing. (remember stories are about PEOPLE)
If you just want to be famous and rich...just give up now. The
industry knows you are coming and has already enthusiastically
selected 500 ways to f*** you, in the worst possible sense. It'll
have more by the time you get your eye to the camera.
--
Alexander Ibrahim
http://www.zenera.com
Wanna quote me ?
http://www.zenera.com/aibrahim/quoteme.html
______________________
I decline reception of any non-subscribed commercial
mass-mailings.
If such mailings are sent to me, I reserve the right to charge
sender $500.
Disputes of this fee may be resolved in court.
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By
Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation
of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover
actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater."
Full text of USC Title 47 Sec.227
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
___________________
www.visitithaca.com too...!
cajun
For the love of all that is good, please.
Jazz
"films" then a Canon XL-1 is the best Choice followed by the
GL-1"
I'm not sure I agree with this. If you look at the latest MiniDV features
to be released, all shot with low to substantial budgets, they were shot
with the VX1000. Miguel Arteta's "Chuck and Buck" Spike Lee's "Bamboozled"
and I believe Lars von Tier's "The Idiots." But I believe that "image
quality" is aesthetic that can me manipulated to best service the through-
line of the film. Look at Thomas Vinterberg's "The Celebration," it was
shot with a single chip Sony PC1.
I also just dropped $2300.00 for a VX2000 (after five months of research)
and will not let myself accept the notion that I didn't get the right
camera for my upcoming feature. Also, I strongly advise you against the GL1
as it does not have manual gain controls for sound. An audience can accept
a very "loud" and distorted image, such as "The Celebration" or "pi," but
is utterly unforgiving when it comes to sound. Cassavetes spent almost a
year fixing the sound of "Shadows" because he knew it would ruin his film.
Best of luck to you with your project.