Ken Ross is right in all respects, I followed that thread at the AVS Forum and I came to the same conclusion.

I think this guy feels "He is the last CocaCola in the desert."

Luis

Thanks guys, it's much appreciated. The forums would be far better places if we didn't have to spend so much time battling with guys on a 'mission'.

Nice shots Joe, but you would have been accused of 'tampering' with them. ;)

I don't know how you make pictures sharper :o You can only do so much with Photochop

I quote...
Nope, can't argue with that. We can argue that the frame grabs have been tampered with since Wes' original frame grabs look 100 times better than what he posted on his site.

Claims he's output them from Vegas. The worst it possibly could look from Vegas would be if he's not removed the pulldown, and then used the blend fields method to deinterlace the footage which can make a mess of things at times. Even then I don't think it would look as bad as the examples he's posted.

big mess for nothing.
This guy is simply unable to use a video software properly.
He does not doctor anything, he is simply stupid, putting stuff inside his computer and getting them out blindly hey man , after all it's digital !).
he is not very a pro on internet management.

read his remark:
"I'm seeing about 30 NAT sessions per minute, thousands of times busier than normal"
hey, if 30 sessions per minute is THOUSAND time busier than normal, you can imagine the traffic he got normally .

My video content showing up on YouTube
 

I have a website that I have freely allowed my video content I've shot to be downloaded or just streamed and viewed. A friend of mine alerted me that he has seen several of my videos show up on YouTube with no mention that they originated from my website. I'm not saying or doing anything from my past mistakes but I have decided to employ a new editing technique. I just edit in the title track as an overlay filmed by ________ and my website URL. I just disperse these two items a few times through the clip. Since all of my video clips are music videos, it would be noticible if someone edits the frames out that has my "titling". I place the titling down in the lower right hand corner as an overlay and just for a few seconds so as to be the least detraction as possible from the content of the clip.

I've noticed quite a few people stamp something somewhere on photos they post on the Internet. That might be an option that we employ here and in other forums that we post content. We're here to share or stuff so that others can learn, but at the same time, we don't need to have unscrupulous people ripping us off. Even if he hadn't reprocessed the clip or photo, I think it's still wrong. I'm actually for people ripping off my content & have it spread around in most cases, I just want the content to be properly credited.

The problem with that is I know I like to see native M2T video right from the tape so that's what I try to post and if you watermark your footage then you're going to add a generation of compression. But I understand why many do this.

I understand what you're saying. Posting samples on a forum like this is a special situaltion. I doubt that anybody would post M2t, which is HD MP2, for general consumption as a rule because of the huge downloads. I think I sampled a 30 second m2t file here awhile back and it was about 155 meg.

I think the Internet bandwidth is still a few years away from being practical to push out HD for general consumption. We need a minum of 4 mbs or better downstream for this to be a reality. I feel like I've been pushing the edge of practicality for the general Internet population, when I've been posting all my videos at 640/480/30fps/768kbs. I imagine 512 kbs is about the average DSL downstream for most users. Maybe a little better at times for cable people but the problem with cable is the bw varies all over the place depending on how many are on the cable in a given area at any given time.

What he doesn't realize (or chooses to ignore), is the fact that any camera operator can produce hideous video if he/she doesn't know what they're doing. I always found it fascinating that he claimed he couldn't find any HV20 footage when it's littered all around the internet.

He then resorts to taking a fine quality frame grab and then doctoring it to look so obviously worse than what we know Wes' shot was originally. Additionally, he claimed my shot was taken in the dedicated picture mode as opposed to video and that was part of the reason why it looked better...I was stacking the deck. In fact, the pix I posted was from video already shot, put in freeze frame and then captured by hitting the photo button. Adobe was used for nothing more than downsizing to meet AVS file attachment requirements.

I guess we can all agree, 'unbelievable'.

But the interesting thing is that even if you gave someone 'credit' for being nothing more than ignorant in a bungled attempt to post a picture, surely that person would have been able to see how he thoroughly destroyed the sharpness and quality of the picture. At that point he would realize "I goofed, I better try again". This is precisely why I am 100% convinced that this was a deliberate attempt to destroy the credibility of the HV20.

In fact, when I asked him how posted resolution numbers, independent reviews and user testimonials could all be wrong, he totally ignored these comments. The guy has a mission, that couldn't be more obvious. He is simply ticked off that a cheap camera like this could be getting the reviews and picture quality it does.

Wow. People still post there? I thought that was long forgotten.

Usenet? Strange as it may seem, it's still around. The extremely high noise level in which it excels was a significant factor in my decision to initiate this site and establish a real-names policy in an effort to generate some online accountability. After witnessing usenet first hand, I wondered if it would be possible to try to give the internet a good name, and as such that's been the goal here since the beginning.

Meanwhile usenet today is only a shell of its former self, thankfully.

Actually I am finding that there are quite a few people with this same type attitude. It's all funny to me because sometimes I can read between the lines in their responses to certain questions or in their general statements about the cam. The HV20 is not a professional cam and has its shortcomings but with what it does in its price range it is inspiring a lot of other up and coming filmakers (videomakers). It has the ability to produce top notch products. I think this is intimidating for some people especially people like this who probably owns a much higher end cam. But, thanks to forums like this people can be well informed.

This thread cracks me up.

Regarding ALL of those stills... no matter what camera they came from, they all looked soft.

Bill