Varnshi

your probably gone...so you won't hear this.......feel free to go after me ...but Chris doesn't deserve your comment. There isn't a better person in the web world, and as much as this site has always been a clearing house for Canon oriented information and discussion, I've probably heard chris recommend other cameras from other manufacturers a dozen times on these boards. He's publicly lusted over the 12 bit dsp in the panasonic DVX100, and has offered his web bandwidth to discussions on virtually every topic and manufacturer in this industry. Yes, he is close to canon, and that's why we get such great, detailed information on this site...rather than the rumours, speculation and crap on so many others.

Barry

Vamshi (if you are still here)

I am baffled by your attitude. Barry has provided some excellent information in this thread, which has been very educative for me and probably many others.

As for your attack on Chris and this website, I think it is completely unwarranted. Show me one instance where he has promoted Canon cameras. In fact, you will find a lot of speculative (and apparently largely unwarranted) criticism of the XL2 on this forum. None of this has been censored. Chris will always challenge factual errors, but not opinion. Would you prefer it some other way?

Good luck in finding a better forum for discussion on DV - if you find one, let me know because I haven't been able to. I do, however, suspect that you may find some better poetry sites.

Best wishes
Duncan

Alright Barry /Duncan.

Good Toast for Chris.. I think you are the good friends for him. I dont even mean to hurt anybody.. This is a forum. ..Everybody comes up with his problems... 2-3instances i observed chris.....answering roughly.. And in dealing with an image problem ..... can you guys answer for this thing...

"When new lines meet your eye
from two screens as they ply,
that's a-moire."

Where strange colors now shine,
they weren't there the last time,
that's a-moire."

its clearly an insult to clive.

I said its nice poetry. Alright, he never comeup with an answer, he took the help of you guys...to support him...this is absolute reality.

Regarding 3 instances... this issue about image problem
the others are regarding the mic problem.. he has given a rough -rough answer.....So also why he never comeup with an answer...why he is not watching this forum......

I dont mean to raise my hand on anyothers....
Weather he supports canon or not is his issue....I also supports canon...,but comparision is my juncture.

Any way guys....cool.......

Gents, if this helps at all:

Even when you are shooting film that will ultimately be transferred to video, you have to watch out for potential moire. You don't get the luxury of seeing it on the monitor and deciding what to do with it, you just have to be knowledgeable enough to say "I think we might have a problem with that pinstripe tie" or "the screen in that window may moire down the road". Recent telecine technology has eliminated a lot of this but there are still no-no's out there; as Barry pointed out, you can even get your eyes to moire under the worst of circumstances!

Obviously if one camera exhibits more problems than another, that's reason for concern. Until we actually see side-by-side examples of, say, the DVX100a and the XL2 pointed at the same environment where the problem manifests in one camera vs another (and the detail and other relevant settings are as similar as possible), then I say it's pointless to debate. With all due respect to the intrepids who are posting their initial tests, it seems to be stirring the pot more than anything else. I'm looking forward to a thorough set of tests under multiple shooting situations, from charts to real-life high-contrast scenes to lowlight scenes, with both cameras. I'd be happy to do them myself, if Canon sent me a camera.

Oooh... Nice cast there Charles, Hope you get bite!

I'm betting by this time next week Charles. I'm looking forward to a controlled studio test of Xl2 with different lenses and with the P&S...I have the XL1s for comparison as well.

Sorry to bring this up, but I just read this thread. It's very strange to me that no one here recognized this right away by looking at the two images.

It's not the lens. It's not photoshop resizing. It's not the CCD. It's not related to anything at all, except deinterlacing.

Take the better of the two images, go to photoshop, go to Filters > Video > Deinterlace (default settings). You'll get the same moire patterns as with the other image.

The problem is that the second "progressive" image got deinterlaced somehow (progressive should never be deinterlaced by definition) because of inappropriate settings within the software/camera etc.

As for this effect being visible in the viewfinder -- could be camera settings, or perhaps the camera doesn't have a progressive path to the viewfinder. The output would be progressive regardless, and should be free of any artifacts as such.

I don't personally use these cameras, so I can't comment on any specific options they may have for this. But this is a very simple problem nonetheless.

Edit:
About the viewfinder moire -- another big factor would be simple downscaling of a 960 x 480 image > viewfinder pixel count. That would just result in simple aliasing then, which in turn would create moire patterns on fine lines, grids etc. The solution then would be to get a good CRT viewfinder.

Nick

Clive says the artifacts are present on a monitor when the video is played back. This would eliminate PS and de-interlacing as as source of the artifacts.

Sorry, but it's most certainly deinterlacing. There is no doubt.

There is no other way a progressive image would lose half of it's vertical resolution in this exact manner. Look at anything diagonal in the picture. You can see very obvious staircasing and pixelation -- that's a result of very basic deinterlacing.

Monitor - what kind of monitor? If it's a video monitor then it will most likely be interlaced, (unless it specifically supports progressive) which could easily create moire when progressive footage is played back on it. You have to use progressive video monitors to play progressive footage. If your final output is intended to be interlaced, then you should shoot in interlaced mode to begin with...

If progressive footage shows moire effects on a computer monitor, then I would say it's most likely an automatic deinterlace setting that was left on somewhere. The software we use here is different, but it allows specifying whether the source has fields or not, and the program will deinterlace the video automatically while you edit it, but keep it interlaced on export. I'm guessing basic video editing programs assume DV footage to be interlaced by default (which makes sense).

To be honest, the reason could be anything. But I can say from my very substantial experience with doing video transfers that the moire artifacts that Clive showed are definitely as a result of deinterlacing. That's the one statement behind which I stand 100%. The rest is in the details...

For further proof, please try what I suggested. Save the better progressive image provided by Clive (without artifacts) and open it with photoshop and run Filter > Video > Deinterlace. You'll see that it's totally identical to the image with moire, down to the finest details.

I knew what the problem was the second I saw the bad image, I've been deinterlacing videos for a long time. Sorry if I sound too pushy, but this is an area that I have far too much experience in. :)

Nick, I'm not really disagreeing, but Clive has quit posting again (I think he wants us all to take out a subscription) and without access to the native DV files it is impossible to tell the cause with 100% certainty. I agree with what your saying and I was headed to the same conclusion in my first post. However, his insistence on seeing it on the monitor leaves many gaps in trying to determine it's actual cause.

I got bored and tried the photoshop test, and it looks exactly like moired image when you apply the deinterlace filter. I don't know if this means anything, and I'm not trying to fuel anything, but it's just to let y'all know.

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick James : Sorry, but it's most certainly deinterlacing. There is no doubt.


Monitor - what kind of monitor? If it's a video monitor then it will most likely be interlaced, (unless it specifically supports progressive) which could easily create moire when progressive footage is played back on it. You have to use progressive video monitors to play progressive footage. If your final output is intended to be interlaced, then you should shoot in interlaced mode to begin with...

:) -->>>

Nick, I would have to dissagree with you on this one. While progressive footage will look best on progressive scan TV's, progressive footage works great on interlaced television as well. In fact, you should not be limited in any wayt that you shoot, because progressive footage has a much different asthetic than interlaced footage. IF everything that was shown on interlaced televisions was interlaced then you could say bye bye to your DVD collection, lots of nightime drama shows and sitcoms witch are shot on film or progressive HD. Progressive footage displays fine on interlaced TV's and even interlaced footage can display moire problems like that described by Clive.

The fact that the moire is visible on a monitor, but not in the image is no great mystery. I did a test with my DVX the other night, shooting a test chart designed to produce a moire, or rather lots of them. Viewing the image through the LCD produced wild, crazy moires, while viewing through an NTSC monitor produced a very strong set of patterns as well. When I imported the footage I was not surprised to see that the moires had almost disappeared..still evident but much less noticeable...but more interesting was this....the moires on the actual image were different moires than the ones appearing on both monitors during filming. This make sense because the varying resolutions of said monitors are going to interact with the source pattern each in a different manner.

The pattern of the bricks alone in clives footage (as charles alluded to in his post about shooting film) would (or at least could) cause moires on a monitor without the actual recorded image having any.

Now regarding the interlace thing...we're really talking about the same process except we're creating it in the image instead of viewing it on a monitor. We have an image that has a pattern with no noticeable moire (there is actually a very slight one, but it is almost invisible)..photoshop's deinterlace filter does little more than halve the vertical resolution by either blending alternating lines or, throwing away one set and doubling the other...so essentially it has lowered the "output" resolution overlaying the pattern...producing a moire...you can produce almost the same result by resizing the image to 50% using nearest neighbor interpolation (bicubic..which is photoshops default is designed to avoid such patterning). So in a nutshell...deinterlacing in itself has nothing to do with this except in that it is lowering the vertical resolution of the image...

(one more thing...try the deinterlace trick and then toggle between the before and after zoomed way in...you'll start to see the slight moire in the actual image that I mentioned above..and you'll notice that the deinterlaced one is opposite in value from barely perceptible one in the image.

Barry

I tend to agree with Jeff. He's being more subtle than I would. As this thread has progressed and as I've watched what Clive has posted, or more importantly hasn't posted, I've been led to think he has an agenda. I can't say what that agenda is, because I don't know. It reads to me like we're being baited, and in my mind, this whole thing is suspicious. Frankly, I don't appreciate such tactics.

Jay

Received my XL2 yesterday, had a chance to play with it tonight. I hate to be negative, because I want this camera to be awesome more than anyone else. Pulled the pieces from the box, assembled it, threw in a tape, and started recording. The only option i changed ..was the frame rate ..i set it to 24p ...recorded 3 minutes of footage around the living room. ...hooked the video cables to the tv (standard 4:3 tv) ...hit play ....and instantly noticed very significant and distracting "moire" or "artifacting". ...I'm not an expert, so I cant say whether it's moire or artifacting or both. The main objects I noticed it on were the wooden shutters in the windows, and the frames of pictures, hanging on the wall. .....I started playing around a little bit ..and just kind of looked at the camera, then i switched it back to manual mode, while still hooked up to the TV ...I left the camera on top of the tv aiming at the walls with the shuttered windows ......And I noticed "flickering" around the edges of the shutters.?? Note that the camera wasnt moving at all. .

So ...I guess I'm not sure what to do.

Also ...has anyone noticed in 16:9 mode ...when looking through the VF ....do you notice the letterboxed area on top ..kind of flickering? ...

Some positive comments:

This puppy is built pretty solidly. I mean, it feels rock solid. Very impressed with that. I owned the DVX100 ...pulled it from the box, was disappointed with the build. It felt cheap. So I sent it back the next day.

The xl2 ...just looks beautiful. To me, the looks of the camera alone are worth $2,000.

The little bit of recording I did around the house, I was very impressed with the color reproduction.

Was also very impressed with the low noise in "dark" situations.


Keep in mind, I've only recorded about 10 minutes worth of footage. I'm worried about the moire problem, but I am so impressed with the camera, overall, that I'm going to keep it, ..and hope that I can "learn" how to minimize the appearence of the moire ....assuming that the moire problem isnt a defect, but rather just the "nature of higher definition cameras" as stated on this forum.


j.

Can you upload or send a dv sample to show the moire effect???


regards
Daniel

You know, I see moire all the time when watching TV on a 32" set, especially the typical interviews with some guy who wears a fine stripped shirt, and this is usually shot using broadcast camcorders with broadcast 2/3" lenses, so I'm tempted to ask, what else is new?

Did people expect this problem (which is more IMO a weakness of our interlaced monitor systems in general than the cameras used to shoot for them) to magically disappear with the XL2?

I mean, I'm no expert, but if you shoot progressive, edit progressive and then see the footage on an interlaced monitor and it has moire visible, wouldn't it point to the monitor being the problem instead of the camcorder?

Because as far as I know, a true progressive scanned image is supposed to be like a digital photo, without interlaced lines of resolution, so this shouldn't influence the output. What might influence it (again, I would think) is the level of sharpness in the image, a sharper image being more inclined to show moire than a softer one, because the latter kinds of smooths any fine lines in the details (kind of like anti-aliasing on a computer).

So if this is correct (and please do tell if I'm wrong), the best solution would be to shoot with the XL2 with details set at "high" and then, if you see problems on an interlaced monitor, just apply some kind of anti-aliasing filter just on the scene(s) that causes problems in post-production. If you plan on transfering to film, this shouldn't be a concern at all I would assume.

Anyone how cared to notice would have seen the same thing on NBC's Olympic broadcast for a good example. Take the track sports and look at the white painted lines on the tracks....moire. Fortunatley only video geeks would be looking at the white line patterns instead of the Olympic action.

yep,

if you watch carefully a Hoolywood DVD (film to very very high quality CCDs transfert), then you'll see tons of these. It is normal when you watch high res progressive footage on an interlaced TV monitor.

A great book on Communications, "How Real is Real" has a story about perception/reality in it. Apparently, during the late fifties, while the atomic testing was going on in the desert... a story went round that the fallout was drifting onto windshields, and causing pitting. People started to look at their windshields, and sure enough, there was significant pitting going on. Enough for the government to do a study.

What they found out was that windshields ALL OVER the US were pitted. What had taken place was not an increase in pitted windshields, but an increase in LOOKING AT WINDSHIELDS. What people had been looking THROUGH all of their life, they were now looking AT.

Funny how that works.

<<Funny how that works.What they found out was that windshields ALL OVER the US were pitted. What had taken place was not an increase in pitted windshields, but an increase in LOOKING AT WINDSHIELDS. What people had been looking THROUGH all of their life, they were now looking AT.>>

This would be the source of a great thread in and of itself Richard. It really speaks to one of the core issues of discussing the technology of, in this case, a video camera, versus the percieved results it delivers, because after all perception is everything and especially when we're producing stuff for the masses (no matter how big those masses).

I understand but still shake my head at post after post here and a couple of other places (music and film/video production). It's been a given to me for a long while that if you have tools that deliver at a certain level, it's encumbent upon you to "play" them well.

I've known so many great players who could bring tears to your eyes on a $100 Silvertone guitar, and yet people with a fraction of that talent will spend years of their short lives debating the finer points of the most expensive instruments and criticising every little fault of the less than top shelf stuff. All the while the great creatives continue to do great creative with whatever tools they have at hand or can afford.

My personal read is this: whether the XL2 exceeds or falls short of beta or digibeta quality, whether it's percieved as "better" in some aspects that a DVX or whatever camera, or worse, we're counting the number of angels on a pin head here.

The XL2 has acheived a level as a creative tool, that for me at least, exceeds my and most people's ability to maximize. The images are just wonderful, and the freedom of it's simple power system, lens capabilities, monitoring etc. create just exactly that...freedom to grow creatively without the encumberances of more "involved" technology.

I guess what I mean is that if you're a really good shooter, film maker, what ever, you can certainly bring tears to peoples eyes with this camera, and that's all that's ever really made sense to me creatively.

oh...

so true...

I'm a musician, and i perfectly understand what you mean.

great wisdom words Jim

regards

Amen to that Jim!
(I think I'll be quoting from you - if you don't mind ...)

Robin

It's been a given to me for a long while that if you have tools that deliver at a certain level, it's encumbent upon you to "play" them well. Jim Giberti

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more! I recall a story from my college days back in the late 60s or early 70s. As a commercial art majors, we studied, among others, Ansel Adams. After a very few days many of the students began to claim that if they had a large format camera, 4x5 or better, like Adams, their photographs would be better than those taken with their 35mm Pentax. Hearing enough of this nonsense our wise professor, Darryl Degelman, pulled out some copies of beautiful b&w photographs and showed them to us. "Who do you think took these?" he asked. Well, it was obvious from the style these photographs were taken by Adams. Then he showed us a picture of the camera Adams had used--a simple, self-made pinhole camera! Mr. Degelman went on to say that it's not the equipment that makes beautiful photographs, it's the artist.

At the risk of sounding like I'm tooting my horn, I'll tell you about the greatest "professional" compliment I ever got. It was about a year ago. The phone rang. I answered it. It was someone inquiring about our work, mentioning that they had seen the sample footage on our web site. During the course of our conversation, the fellow paid me several kind compliments about how nice the images were. Then he asked me a question that both floored me and elated me, "Did you shoot this footage on film?" It has never been a goal of mine, to make video look like film, but I was deeply honored that he felt like he had to ask to be sure. I explained that the footage was shot with the XL1 and XL1s cameras.

Now, some reading this will say it's obvious that guy had no experience, since the differences between film and video are obvious, and on and on and on. But the man on the other end of the line was (and still is) a long time member of the DGA (Directors Guild of America) who has done extensive work in film and video directing and shooting thousands of television commercials that we've all seen and loved.

My point is, I've read so much crap here, and elsewhere, that the XL cameras are not all they're hyped up to be. The auto lenses are garbage. MiniDV is a joke. Video images suck compared to film. You can't shoot anything serious on video. Don't use any of the XLs, you'll have to rent something costing tens of thousands more. Blah, blah, blah. You've read it all before, too. And it just goes to show how little these wannabes really know and/or understand about creating images.

The bottom line is: Know your instrument. Just learn what it can and can't do, then do the best you can with it--whatever it is!

My apologies for being so long-winded. And thank you, Jim, for your consistently wise and well-balanced input here!

Jay

Amen

Thanks Jim and Jay.

<<Amen to that Jim!
(I think I'll be quoting from you - if you don't mind ...)>>

Thanks from Robin, Charles, Jay, some of my favorite listers all in one thread...I've got to drink and post more often <g>.

It would be fun to have a link on the site just to see a few seconds here and there of the work, technically perfect or not, that people feel is some of their most visually "emotional".

This whole thread has really been an eye opener. When I originally posted here, I was hoping to find someone who had perhaps had a chance to spend some time with the camera.

Obviously not. Instead, there was a huge amount of guesstimating and a form of heavy corporate bias towards Canon which shocked me completely. Professional forum? Professional at what exactly? Cinematography or Canon sales?

The reason I pulled out of this thread was that I simply couldn't see the logic in being told by a load of people who hadn't even touched the camera that I was wrong. That's not professionalism, but plain patronising arrogance.

Yes, I know full well what moire is but my original concern was that it was appearing for too much to the extent of being practically unusable. Period. Not just my opion but pretty much every DOP I spoke to in writing my article both in the UK and US who had spent some time with the camera. YES, it is a known problem to the extent that Canon in Japan have been addressing the issue. I admit that the images didn't show this clearly enough but at the same time, is that enough to say the problem doesn't exist?

The answer we found was the lens. Sticking an Arri film lens on via the P&S Teknik adaptor sorted out any serious moire. The supplied lens is a jack of all trades but not a master at 25p.

There was no agenda or tactics. It was simply being close to deadline and wanting to speak to people who knew what the hell they were talking about about the XL2 which clearly wasn't here. Simple.

What the heck did you expect, Clive, the bloody camera hadn't even been released yet, when you first posted!

Too, if memory serves me correctly, several of us asked--pleaded with--you to post a raw image, which you never did. So what was anyone to think?

Jay

So clive...so your solution to eliminating the moire was to put an $8000 adapter with a $xx00 cine lens on the camera. hmmm. I have a tiffen soft fx filter I can sell you for about a grand. Even cheaper I can send you a DVD on how to lower the sharpness and detail on the camera...for say $500.

I apologize if anyone attacked you personally in this forum (it certainly wasn't me), but perhaps your assumption that we're all a bunch of idiots paved the way. The fact that you ran away when people were just asking for some evidence of the problem you exposed also wasn't much help...

Many of the users of this forum have been in this business for years, certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do. Most of us pointed to the fact that if the moire isn't in the actual camera image...then it can't be the camera's fault. Many of us saw NBC's $100 high definition cameras moire-ing all over the olympics this year. Most of us who have been working with digital capture devices for the last 10 years know that moire is a fact of life, and that's what most of us said. Sounds like a professional discussion to me.

Barry

FWIW, watching Inside the NFL the other night, a niclely lit and staged HBO series, I was struck by an extreme vibration in the small checkered lights at the front of the set. It was during a pan up to the talent. It was high end video...that's what it does.

Bush's big national press conference earlier this year, he chose a tie pattern that looked, even to millions of regular viewers, like he was wearing a nucular (sp intentional) device around his neck. It was high end video...that's life.

Barry for the record I don't believe those were NBC's camera's, a large number of them were rented from house's in and around L.A. but i don't think that changes the point any.

Clive: wat this the article in showreel magazine?

Clive (or anybody)

Could you explain how using a higher resolution lens can reduce moire. I don't understand the physics, but I would have assumed that it would have actually exacerbated the effect if anything. I also don't understand how a lens can or can't be a "master of 25p". How does the quality of the optics interact with frame rate (or use of progressive v interlaced) to produce moire?

Just to be clear, these are genuine questions, not an attempt to cast doubt on what you say.

Thanks
Duncan

**certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do**

Thank you for precisely proving my point. You know nothing about me and what I know and you certainly hadn't touched the XL2 yet you have a habit of sounding off Barry. Not impressive.

The solution is simple. If you want to make a film, get a DOP who knows what they're doing and HIRE some film lenses. That's if you HAVE to use the XL2 at all which is debatable.

Anyone who tries to say that the standard lens is fine because moire is part of life is selling you the XL2. The moire was excessive with the standard lens in 25p with the camera we were given. FACT.

This argument is over because everyone is getting so hung up on words in posts and missing the actual point.

GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES rather than listening to Barry and other Canon kissarses who are trying to play down my observation THINKING that its corporate scaremongering.

Byesie bye

Clive: I understand your point but I would like to know if the
article in showreel magazine is from you (just interested) per
my question above.

I personally have no doubt in whether you saw the moire or
not. A lot of people here are trying to see if this happens on
all the camera's or not. That is the main interest.

If I'm not mistaken you had a pre-production model? So this
might not be as sever a problem on the current models out
than it was with yours (not saying it isn't there). I think most
people are trying to assess that among other things.

Your last piece of advice is always sound. Get the camera
yourself before plunking down that much cash. I would not
take anyone's word for something as personal as camera
quality but myself. Ofcourse others can guide you, that is no
problem.

I would like to keep it civil here people.

I'm not rooting for Barry here, but I think he meant to say he
knows some very knowledgable folk here on the forum (there
are, I do not count myself amongst them in regards to these
issues, just to make that clear!) and he feels they might know
more. Probably just worded a bit "wrong" which easily happens
with text.

I agree that as it stands now it sounds like you don't know
anything about it, which we indeed do not know since we don't
know who you are.

Let's all try to keep it professional and discuss the issues in a
professional and technical (with proof preferred) manner and
we can then all make up our minds about everythink.

Thank you.

Clive, I have to disagree with you. You blame Barry for the very thing you've been doing. You've made it sound like the XL2 is the only video camera having any moire issues. That simply isn't the truth. That is all that Barry is saying.

You have and still do ignore the request for uncompressed images from your footage. Why?

Explain why I (and others here) see moire patterns when I/we watch movies on a 36" Vega television that were shot by a DOP that knew what he was doing with FILM lenses.

You claim that the rest of us are "Canon kissarses." When you avoid direct questions and refuse to provide images for others to study and attempt to duplicate--a true scientific method--you leave us with little alternative thought than you are indeed attempting "corporate scaremongering."

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Clive Collier : GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES -->>>

Clive, I should get my XL2 PAL version within a few days. At least yesterday the local Canon rep. told the XL2's will arrive today to the country. Guess I should be able to detect if there's excessive Moire, or say, if there's more than with the XL1.

You may have raised an serious issue which has to do with the PAL version or your observation may have been something specific to the preproduct version you had. Back in 1997 I also got the preproduct XL1 for tests from Canon, and it showed some problems the standard product didn't. (The image on a standard TV had also strange kind of Moire effect.)

The slight problem of this kind of forum is that from reading the posts one is not able to hear the tone of the person behind the message. As far as I can say, Barry's comments appear very professional and gentle. So, stay cool, this question will certainly be sorted out with time. I'm pretty sure nobody has any reason to be a "Canon believer". We simply use their product for various reasons, that's all.

I have had my XL2 since sept 2. I have had serious issues with moire and aliasing. It seems like spectacles and straight lines are jagged and dance around. Brick walls will throw you into a siezure if you watch it long.

The features on the camera are fantastic but the picture is horrible. I had a shot where a couple was walking down a path in the local mountains and the whole picture was dancing.

I have shot on the XL1 since 1998, I compared the cameras side by side and the XL1s had a better picture because it does not have a mind of its own.

I hope that Canon can work this issue out.

I don't have anything to do with this discussion, and I really don't know anything about it, but I really have to say these things:

Clive, indeed, people here requested many times for pictures, and you never gave them or a link.
Most of them tried to help, Barry especially, but if you ignore them also, then don't say they are all ' a bunch of Canon kissarses'.

And I have to say, with al the comment here on the forum, I just wanted to tell everybody I really love it here and I think you are all (well, many of you :-)) real pro's, and very, very friendly and helping.
Just wanted to state that with all the comments here on the forum. I've learned more reading these message boards, then I ever learned in my classes of Video.
Maybe I just use this thread to say a big thank you to everyone here, and don't believe it when people come here and say this forums sucks :-) I'm very proud of it, even if I don't have a big speaking roll in many threads.
I learn things here every day.
If people say: I'll go to REALY SERIOUS DV FORUMS, well, I wish them many many lucks, but I'm very happy with this one.

Sorry if it's off-topic, I really had to say it.
Good luck to everyone here :-).