|
|
Posted by Bill on 01/09/07 20:12
Smarty wrote:
> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the
> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. I have not used the VX2100 very much but I
> did own the VX2000, and the Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several
> respects, including noise level, resolution, and optical performance.
Optical performance? Do you mean it has a better lense?
I am curious about this issue-- which gives you "better" video: a cheap,
basic, HDV camcorder, or an expensive DV camcorder?
It seems logical to me that the cheap HDV gives you "better" video, in
the same way that a cheap 35mm still camera would probably give you a
better image than the best ever Kodak pocket camera. On the other hand,
I've never seen any camcorder approach the VX2000 in the quality of
low-light images. Does the FX-1?
So maybe it depends on what you mean by "better". I know a 35mm print
looks much "better" than a 16mm print. In that sense, is the HDV
camcorder "better"? I also know that a Scorcese movie looks "better"
than a Bruckheimer movie. Is a VX2000 image more aesthetically pleasing
than a HDV image?
>
> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks which
> add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no value in
> improving the ultimate picture quality. I must say, however, that I recently
> returned from a cruise into the Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of
> footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV camcorder, and the outdoor videos were
> stunningly beautiful with rich colors and superb detail. The still image
> functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my TRV900, VX, and
> other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video taken with this $1100
> camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy consumer machine with
> relatively poor video". I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I
> did not want to take it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it
> around when on vacation.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|