Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

OK... I've been doing a LOT of reading online 'til 5am for the last week -
bookmarked probably two dozen "DV" sites including many mentioned here and
I'm still pouring over them. Starting to get the big picture...

I'm looking for subjective opinions from people here. A bit of background
about your experience and why you've come to your conclusions would also be
appreciated.
To date, I've done a number of promotional videos/DVD's for a line of light
aircraft as well as several aviation companies
_________

1st, assume one already has a reasonable kit for lighting and sound for
intended purposes,
how do the following used-market cameras stack up with each other:

Canon XL-1 (not the newer S model - comparison with the S would be
appreciated but it's likely out of my league)
Sony PD-150 & Sony VX-2000 (are they really THAT different?)
Sony TRV-900 / TRV-950
JVC JY-VS200
Any other sub $2000 used cams I should consider.

Bias: *ultimate image quality*, *ability* to GET that image quality
consistently.
EG: if essential controls are buried deep in menus, the camera is less
likely to be used correctly or even at all, especially for non-staged,
candid work.

I'm expecting most people with some professional experience with understand
what I'm getting at with this...
It's all about results. Period.

I also realize with this level of camera, it's a matter of trade-offs - you
only get so much and each one will have it's own "gotchas." What are they?

_________

Next...

Compare differences between Sony Vegas versus Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 and
After Effects 6.5.

Comments? I've NEVER used Vegas but regularly use Adobe products.
I was originally trained on Adobe Premiere 1.0, then 4.3, most recently
Premiere 7. (Pro)

Bottom line: is there anything I CAN'T do with the Adobe Production suite
that I *could* do with Vegas?

NOTE: I'm not getting involved in HD material yet. 16:9 Standard Definition
is as high tech as I'm going for now. If a client or project called for HD,
I could rent the necessary gear.

_________

There's a website mentioning someone who shoots with an XL-1 (or variant) in
some form of progressive mode. They talk about the XL-1 taking the Red/Blue
pixels of one field along with the Green pixels of the next and since the
greens are offset slightly, the net effect is a quasi-progressive sampling.

The punch line of the anecdote was Betacam guys commenting "there you go,
shooting film and making us look bad" - the result being a filmic look.

Comments on this type of trick? Do most/all cameras in this range offer this
kind of capture mode? It's obviously working for some people.
They also mentioned on the same page some Discovery Channel videographer
using that mode and getting consistently spectacular results on field
assignments.

_________

PAL versus NTSC cameras: some people have commented they prefer PAL 25 frame
per second capture for the look. (assuming this is progressive?)
I import ALL of my work into Premiere but output for the NTSC market (I live
in Canada, eh?) Can I use a PAL camera and convert on output to DVD or Tape?
Is this really something I should consider or more trouble than the benefit
it could bring?
_________

I'm encouraged by all that I've read so far and have to thank everyone who's
posted here to date.

Movies like "Open Water" and "Dust to Glory" - heck, "Super Size Me" - are
great motivation knowing what you can accomplish with gear that's readily
available to someone with a strict budget.

Rent or buy, it looks like there's exciting, very usable technology
available today.

Looking forward to your comments!

Chris

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:QYmdnYTZY5UdfLHfRVn-1A@rogers.com...
> OK... I've been doing a LOT of reading online 'til 5am for the last week -
> bookmarked probably two dozen "DV" sites including many mentioned here and
> I'm still pouring over them. Starting to get the big picture...
>
> I'm looking for subjective opinions from people here. A bit of background
> about your experience and why you've come to your conclusions would also
be
> appreciated.
> To date, I've done a number of promotional videos/DVD's for a line of
light
> aircraft as well as several aviation companies
> _________
>
> 1st, assume one already has a reasonable kit for lighting and sound for
> intended purposes,
> how do the following used-market cameras stack up with each other:
>
> Canon XL-1 (not the newer S model - comparison with the S would be
> appreciated but it's likely out of my league)
> Sony PD-150 & Sony VX-2000 (are they really THAT different?)

My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:

1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000 has
a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
focusing.

2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.

3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000 adjusts
them together.


> Sony TRV-900 / TRV-950

The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as a
Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very poor
low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.

> JVC JY-VS200

I don't know it, sorry.

> Any other sub $2000 used cams I should consider.

Neither the VX2000 nor the PD150 are in production any longer. Their
replacements are the VX2100 and PD-170, both of which list for over $2000.

>
> Bias: *ultimate image quality*, *ability* to GET that image quality
> consistently.
> EG: if essential controls are buried deep in menus, the camera is less
> likely to be used correctly or even at all, especially for non-staged,
> candid work.
>
> I'm expecting most people with some professional experience with
understand
> what I'm getting at with this...
> It's all about results. Period.
>
> I also realize with this level of camera, it's a matter of trade-offs -
you
> only get so much and each one will have it's own "gotchas." What are they?
>
> _________
>
> Next...
>
> Compare differences between Sony Vegas versus Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 and
> After Effects 6.5.


I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.


>
> Comments? I've NEVER used Vegas but regularly use Adobe products.
> I was originally trained on Adobe Premiere 1.0, then 4.3, most recently
> Premiere 7. (Pro)
>
> Bottom line: is there anything I CAN'T do with the Adobe Production suite
> that I *could* do with Vegas?
>
> NOTE: I'm not getting involved in HD material yet. 16:9 Standard
Definition
> is as high tech as I'm going for now. If a client or project called for
HD,
> I could rent the necessary gear.
>
> _________
>
> There's a website mentioning someone who shoots with an XL-1 (or variant)
in
> some form of progressive mode. They talk about the XL-1 taking the
Red/Blue
> pixels of one field along with the Green pixels of the next and since the
> greens are offset slightly, the net effect is a quasi-progressive
sampling.
>
> The punch line of the anecdote was Betacam guys commenting "there you go,
> shooting film and making us look bad" - the result being a filmic look.
>
> Comments on this type of trick? Do most/all cameras in this range offer
this
> kind of capture mode? It's obviously working for some people.
> They also mentioned on the same page some Discovery Channel videographer
> using that mode and getting consistently spectacular results on field
> assignments.
>
> _________
>
> PAL versus NTSC cameras: some people have commented they prefer PAL 25
frame
> per second capture for the look. (assuming this is progressive?)
> I import ALL of my work into Premiere but output for the NTSC market (I
live
> in Canada, eh?) Can I use a PAL camera and convert on output to DVD or
Tape?
> Is this really something I should consider or more trouble than the
benefit
> it could bring?
> _________
>
> I'm encouraged by all that I've read so far and have to thank everyone
who's
> posted here to date.
>
> Movies like "Open Water" and "Dust to Glory" - heck, "Super Size Me" - are
> great motivation knowing what you can accomplish with gear that's readily
> available to someone with a strict budget.
>
> Rent or buy, it looks like there's exciting, very usable technology
> available today.
>
> Looking forward to your comments!
>
> Chris
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

That helps a lot, thanks!

I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
time."

Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?

I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.

If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
Panasonic AG-EZ30.

There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
performance, ya' know?

Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.

Chris





"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...

> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>
> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
> has
> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
> focusing.
>
> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>
> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
> adjusts
> them together.


> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
> a
> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
> poor
> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.


> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:

>That helps a lot, thanks!
>
>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
>time."
>
>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>
>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>
>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>
>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
>performance, ya' know?
>
>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>
>> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>
>> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>> has
>> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>> focusing.
>>
>> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>>
>> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>> adjusts
>> them together.
>
>
>> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
>> a
>> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>> poor
>> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>
>
>> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
>> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Well well. I'd say that just eliminated the VX1000 from the list.


"JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:1s6dnehfKPfqZLHfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
> That helps a lot, thanks!
>
> I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
ago.
> I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
the
> time."
>
> Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
> Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
> these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?

I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by pros
making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like the
DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse than a
PD-150.

>
> I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
> Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.

There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up their
first try.

>
> If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
> Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
> Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>
> There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
> that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
more
> performance, ya' know?
>
> Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.

3 things I wanted to comment on -

1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.

2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right answers to
your search.

3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.




>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>
> > My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
> > primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
> >
> > 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
> > has
> > a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
> > focusing.
> >
> > 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
> > microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR
jacks.
> >
> > 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
> > adjusts
> > them together.
>
>
> > The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
> > TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
> > resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such
as
> > a
> > Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
> > poor
> > low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>
>
> > I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to
version
> > 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
> > Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
> > capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:vJGdnezluIl1YrHfRVn-rw@rogers.com...
> Well well. I'd say that just eliminated the VX1000 from the list.
>
>
> "JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
> news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
>> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
>> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
>> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
>> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
>> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
>> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
>> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
>> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
>> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
>> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
>> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>

One of my clients has an AG-EZ30. At his urging I did my first DV
production using that camera switching from BetaSP. The images looked nice.
However, it does not have the low-light performance of the Sony VX200/PD150
cameras. And, it does not have a VTR function; that is, you can't record to
DV from another video source. I'd eliminate it from your list.

Steve King

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Thanks Scott.

With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the destination
for me.

A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of reference so
I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as well as
be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for professional
advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the knowledge.

I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
information.

I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with the
Adobe suite I've gotten to know.

Cheers!
Chris


"MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
newsi7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by pros
> making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like
> the
> DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
> it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse than
> a
> PD-150.
>
> There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up
> their
> first try.
>
> 3 things I wanted to comment on -
>
> 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
>
> 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right answers
> to
> your search.
>
> 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"JT" <NgPoster@missing.org> wrote in message
news:ssup215chgpesd9ujpnpj7d7u3sisc9ujj@4ax.com...
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue.

It doesn't. I use my VX2000 exclusively for travel videography. It gets
knocked around alot, and used under pretty bad weather conditions. I've had
no problems with it whatsoever.


> But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.

About the VX2000? I've never seen anything about it like what you're
describing.

>Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
>
>>That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year
>>ago.
>>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of
>>the
>>time."
>>
>>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>>
>>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>>
>>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200%
>>more
>>performance, ya' know?
>>
>>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>>
>>> My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>>> primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>>
>>> 1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>>> has
>>> a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>>> focusing.
>>>
>>> 2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>>> microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR
>>> jacks.
>>>
>>> 3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>>> adjusts
>>> them together.
>>
>>
>>> The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>>> TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>>> resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such
>>> as
>>> a
>>> Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>>> poor
>>> low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>>
>>
>>> I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to
>>> version
>>> 1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>>> Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>>> capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm a lowly student filmmaker that might be able to provide some insight
into the Canon world. I own a GL-1 and am for the most part very
pleased with it. I have played with a GL-2, and I think if I were going
into the professional realm I would definitely stick it out to at least
get the GL-2 over the GL-1. The GL-1 is a fine camera, but it lacks a
lot of the features you really need to maintain a professional control
over your video. It doesn't have XLR inputs (neither does the GL-2, but
you can get a pretty nifty shoe adapter for it), it doesn't have
audio level control, it doesn't even show you the audio levels so you
never really know what they sound like till it's much too late, its
"progressive" mode seems to chop off some pixels on the left and right
(whereas I think the GL-2 can do "progressive" at full resolution), it's
remarkably heavy for its size, and it has fewer shutter speed options
than the GL-2. At a little over $2k, I would definitely get a brand new
GL-2 over a used, discontinued GL-1.

However, all that said, you might really want to consider the XL series.
With real XLR inputs and native 16:9 and amazing lens control, it fits
even better into the professional world.

I don't know how any of these cameras compare to Sony (or Panasonic or
JVC), but hopefully that will help you on the all-too-familiar google
search quest.

Good luck,
Ryan

JT wrote:
> IMO PD150 and VX1000 don't belong on the same list. PD150 has
> significantly better low light, much more control over video (and
> audio) quality (quantity, actually), better viewfinder(s) and - this
> is a stretch - a better transport. The VX700/VX1000 transport seems
> very fragile, very prone to problems that require the transport to be
> replaced, after lots of intermediate cleanings, wailings, and
> whimpers. VX2000 may have the same issue. But either Sony fans don't
> want to admit it's a problem, or I could be dead wrong and it's not a
> problem, but you can read a *lot* of stuff on usenet about the agonies
> of that part on-line.Besides the clue that it's also DVCAM compatible,
> the PD-150 transport opens differently from the others, fwiw.
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That helps a lot, thanks!
>>
>>I also rarely use After Effects. I think the last time was over a year ago.
>>I'm with you on that front - Premiere does 100% of what I need, "99% of the
>>time."
>>
>>Any comments on the VX1000 versus the 2000?
>>Could you shoot the next "Open Water" with a 1000, TRV-900 or GL1 or are
>>these noticably weaker performers than the VX2000/PD150 generation?
>>
>>I'm curious: why do you prefer the Sonys over the Canon XL-1?
>>Others have echoed that sentiment - just wondering why.
>>
>>If I had to make a short list of cameras at this point, they'd include:
>>Sony TRV900, VX1000, VX2000 & PD150, Canon XL1 & GL1, JVC JY-VS200,
>>Panasonic AG-EZ30.
>>
>>There's a Panasonic (nice Leica lens) 3-CCD model under $1000 but I think
>>that's cutting TOO many corners for cost - 50% more investment for 200% more
>>performance, ya' know?
>>
>>Still soliciting comments per my original email and on the above cams.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>news:39470mF5oqt0tU1@individual.net...
>>
>>
>>>My personal opinion -- the XL-1 does not compare to either Sony. The
>>>primary differences between the VX2000 and PD-150 are:
>>>
>>>1. The PD150 has a higher-resolution monochrome viewfinder, the VX2000
>>>has
>>>a color viewfinder, which gives the PD150 an edge for critical manual
>>>focusing.
>>>
>>>2. The VX2000 has an on-camera stereo microphone and an 1/8" stereo
>>>microphone. The PD150 has an on-camera mono microphone and two XLR jacks.
>>>
>>>3. The PD150 can adjust each audio channel separately. The VX2000
>>>adjusts
>>>them together.
>>
>>
>>>The TRV900 was a nice camera with an image similar to the VX1000. The
>>>TRV-950 is a bastard compromise between consumer and prosumer features,
>>>resulting in the worst of both. It is riddled with gimmicky junk, such as
>>>a
>>>Blue Tooth interface. It has small, high-density CCDs, giving it very
>>>poor
>>>low-light performance compared to the VX2000/PD150.
>>
>>
>>>I don't use Vegas and never did. Premiere Pro is currently up to version
>>>1.5 (actually 1.5.1, though this only adds HD capability). I have After
>>>Effects 6.5 but rarely use it -- I find Pro's compositing and correcting
>>>capabilities more than sufficient for what I do. Your mileage may vary.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

I want to echo several others I've seen here.

I do wedding videography so I MUST have a low-light solution. I looked as
hard as I could but not much held up to the Sonys (2000 and now 2100).

I know it's over $2k but not that much and it may just be worth it to you.

The only other camera I've heard of competing with these for low-light is
the Panasonic AG-DVX100A.

And I've used Adobe for everything. And I love After Effects, the titles
and lower thirds you can make in a couple seconds with that are amazing.

Tom P.


"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:3tGdnbc5zNL2krDfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> Thanks Scott.
>
> With this, as many things, the journey is as important as the destination
> for me.
>
> A lot of the information I'm soaking up is giving me a frame of reference
so
> I can speak intelligently with other professionals in this field as well
as
> be a more valuable resource to my clients when they ask for professional
> advice. Delivering a better product becomes a side effect of the
knowledge.
>
> I'm more concerned about driving *other people* nuts while I'm sponging
> information.
>
> I will be critical of CCD size and it's nice to know I can get by with the
> Adobe suite I've gotten to know.
>
> Cheers!
> Chris
>
>
> "MediaBLITZ" <scott.bethel@sbcnospamglobal.net> wrote in message
> newsi7Xd.1925$WK2.1296@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > I am a big VX-1000 fan - used it for years - but a lot was learned by
pros
> > making movies with it and those upgrades are noticeable in cameras like
> > the
> > DVX-100A. So if you are looking for a theatrical deal like Open Water -
> > it's all about film conversion. The VX-1000 would not be much worse
than
> > a
> > PD-150.
> >
> > There's a reason Canon had to come out with an XL-1S - they screwed up
> > their
> > first try.
> >
> > 3 things I wanted to comment on -
> >
> > 1) Pay attention to the size of the CCD's. Bigger is better.
> >
> > 2) Don't drive your self nuts on this - there are a lot of right
answers
> > to
> > your search.
> >
> > 3) You really can't go wrong going with Adobe.
>
>
>