Camera comparison idea

[Shawn Mielke]

What about a thread exclusively dedicated to stills and moving segments taken with camcorders, along with details on settings, lighting, motion, lenses, filters, etc, used? With so much subjective hearsay in this dv world of ours, wouldn't this be a great way for, say, future owners, to quickly access real results? This sort of thing goes on in threads as the topic or whim arises, but it's here, there, and everywhere, unconsolidated. The forum could be a part of the general dv discussion section so users and seekers could quickly compare results from two cams of different price, manufacturer, and so on.
Doesn't this seem like The Direction to go? Aren't picures worth more than words? An idea....
Regards,
Shawn

[Jeff Donald]

This topic comes up from time to time. Several limitations are the ability to put full resolution clips on the web, server space and server bandwidth. Large scale posting of full resolution clips takes up a lot of bandwidth and bandwidth costs money. Anything less than full resolution is useless for evaluating the picture quality etc. The DV for the Masses forum is for posting clips. Although you need to host them yourself.

[Chris Hurd]

The other concern is that full-res video clips look quite different on a TV or a pro video monitor as opposed to a computer monitor. I've seen a lot of people make value judgements concerning what they see on their computer display, which is not at all the same as viewing clips on your living room television set. There's a bit of a re-education process sometimes, to get folks to realize that video on the computer screen is very different from video on a television set.

It has been suggested to build a video DVD with example clips and such, but that's primarily limited by a lack of time and resources. That is, those who are in the best position to do it are usually too busy working, and therefore can't devote the time to assemble such a thing. As Jeff points out, the best compromise we can offer currently is the "DV for the Masses" forum, where you can showcase your work, provided you can host it yourself. Hope this helps,

[Shawn Mielke]

I understand the self hosting part, it's mostly an organizational thing that I'm thinking of, to help focus the information in a much more succinct way. Someone posted stills from his/her Optura 20 at another site recently and, I don't really know if they were full resolution or not, they seemed rather clear, but they were very useful to me. I got the gist of the cam's color reproduction, graininess in relatively low light, the bit of bluish vertical smear, etc. My only thought here is towards better enabling what people are already doing.

[Chris Hurd]

Well, I'm aware that there are some other camcorder sites out there doing comparisons and such (no names please), but personally I don't feel that they're done as well as they could be. We could do our own full-blown camera comparisons here at DV Info because I can get my hands on just about everything within reason and have it all in the same place at the same time shooting the same thing, but in planning it I would need *a lot* of input and feedback from members regarding exactly how those tests should be done and what the overall format of the whole thing should be. I'm very much open to that, but it would have to be a team thing, with a lot of involvement from members who have a clear idea of how that sort of thing should go down.

[Shawn Mielke]

Sent my last post before catching yours, Chris. Lack of time and resources, I gotcha. Differences between tv s, monitors, and computer displays? Alright. So, then, that Optura 20's color reproduction isn't perhaps quite what I think it is, as seen in the posted still? Fair enough.

Worth a try, anyhow!

Regards,
Shawn

[Jeff Donald]

Someone posted stills from his/her Optura 20 at another site recently and, I don't really know if they were full resolution or not, they seemed rather clear, but they were very useful to me. I got the gist of the cam's color reproduction, graininess in relatively low light, the bit of bluish vertical smear, etc.

Shawn, you made a very subjective judgement based on information that could be very misleading. As Chris points out, computer monitors are not well suited for evaluating image quality (unless all you do is web work). Since the vast majority of my work is for NTSC video, I only evaluate image quality using NTSC production monitors.

[Chris Hurd]

Optura 20 is really not bad. No RGB filter, though. The Optura Xi and 300 are really incredible, and well worth the difference in price from the Optura 20.

[Boyd Ostroff]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : computer monitors are not well suited for evaluating image quality -->>>

Of course that's a valid point, but it brings to mind two things:

1. Looking at side by side comparisions of the same subject taken with camera "A" and "B" gives you some sense of the differences. Even if a computer monitor is less than ideal you are still comparing apples to apples if both examples are viewed on the same screen.

2. On the Mac you can adjust the characteristics of your display to be closer in line with a video monitor. Under OS X, open "displays" in the system preferences then click the "color" tab (or use the monitors control panel on OS 9). Click on the "calibrate" button to open the assistant, then check the expert option. While it doesn't address all the issues, you can make the images on your computer screen much closer to what you'd see on a video monitor.

[Shawn Mielke]

Oh, Chris, you're thinking of You and DVINFO conducting tests. That's a very generous thought on your part, but not really what I meant. It just seems to me that people, individuals, we the people, post their stills, often with high resolution, already. What if they had a very precise "room" here in which to do it? Perhaps there could be highly recommended parameters, like "Please post at as high a resolution as you can." :-) If I sound naive or unrealistic, you're probably absolutely correct! I'm just throwing an idea out, come what may.

But in as far as DVINFO conducting something, I agree with you that other sites could do this better than they have, but they're doing it, and they're doing it because it's the right sort of thing to be doing, kind of like that obvious next step to take in a logical process, the one you always see instantaneously, though only upon reflection. It just needs refinement, as with any relatively new idea.

Whether you did it or we did it given the right space and condition, pictures and text seem more useful than text alone, and certainly better than manufacturer spec. sheets. Subjectivity is inescapable, but it's better than nothing. Thanks for thinking out loud with me!

Regards,
Shawn