Id like to know what some of you think about the results from the b/h shoot out ,comparing three cameras above $2000 and up.
These tests were carried out by" camcorderinfo .com"
The three cameras compared were.....dcr-vx2000
cannon xl1s
pana dvx100
am interested on your views?

pffffft

what a farce....

this "reviewer" obviously doesnt know how to configure the DVX...

what a numbnut...

An extremely misleading farce.

I sent the editor an email asking to revise the review. It's ironic the site contains a link to Adam Wilt's page - I suggested they read his reviews first :)

Camcorderinfo.com is so Sony biased, it isn't funny. The owner of that sight actually said Sony did a smart thing by adding ONLY minor updates to the PD170....even though the new DVX 100 updates blow the PD170 out of the water. The sight is good for breaking news, though.

Check out all their ads...and check out the "exclusive" reviews on that site. All Sony stuff.

There's your answer.

Camcorderinfo replied to me and when I posted the replies here, they asked for them to be removed. I suggested they post here themselves, but they don't seem inclined to change or alter their review, so Glenn and Nick are probably right about the editorial bias.

I haven't read their $2000 & above camcorder review, but the one this gal Lisa did for under-$2000 camcorders was a real laugh. Duh, Lisa, you are testing a video camera, not a still camera. I have no objection to using a "B&H" test pattern, or any test pattern, for that matter. But, try panning across it at a steady speed or zooming in on it. This will get rid of the 1/8th sec shutter speed which the Canon GL2 seems to be using to capture the low light image. Better yet, rotate the image on a lazy susan. The other things these testers never do is to calibrate the sensitivity index (SI) of the camcorder. Without this, it's like comparing pears to peaches. Without setting the black level and the gain, and telling me what the shutter speed and iris are, the results are meaningless, and irreproducible.

Last but not least, why the heck can't they do standardized lux tests? Give me a set of gray patches, and tell me what the luminance accuracy over each patch is, and the noise sigma, as recorded by each camcorder.

Oh well, I know why they never do this stuff (including vertical smear). Because it makes most of the cameras look like hobby equipment compared to the pro ENG cameras.

Having relatively ample access to most all 3-chip DV camcorders, I've often proposed doing our own formal comparisons here on DV Info, but of course in a more structured and carefully thought-out manner that makes solid technical sense -- I'd need some serious input from across all of our boards as to how this should best be approached. All of the elements are available, however (all cams in one place at one time, indoor plus outdoor). Let me know your ideas, and together we'll do it up right.

chris, thats an bloody beautiful idea :)

maybe throw in some PAL and NTSC comparison models as well if thats possible.

maybe somethign liek a grid chart without a "comparison" set up..


more like an "info" grid... going thru different aspects, with comments (agreed to by polls on the board) eg an image of a Progressive shot is uploaded, and people can vote on its quality compared to another.. this gives a fairer opinion on the "mass vote" and not restricted to one persons opinion...

jsut a thoguht...

Robin Liss from Camcorderinfo do the most pointless reviews on cameras. Half of the reviews goes towards to describing the texture of the hand strap or the color is the camera body, and how nice do the menus look. Totally irrelevant stuff. I give the active forum on that site more credence than the staff's reviews. Read this exerpt from her VX2100 review:

"..Many people are blasting Sony for not including a 24 frames progressive mode of HD capability on the DCR-VX2100. I agree that these are both good features that should be included in future models, however the technology just isn't there yet. If Sony were to include 24 frames progressive it would certainly mean a huge research and development investment cost which would increase the price of the camcorder significantly..."

Buwaahahaha, tell me they're not paid by Sony!.

Chris, do your reviews.. show em how it's really done.

Chris:

That's a fantastic idea. A great idea would be to do the review with images and short full rez clips for Peter's jury idea. I think a two part jury, one you hand pick experts that will be unbiased, and then, just an open vote.

Chris,
Fantastic idea!

Nick

The reviews on camcorderinfo.com have more bias than a PNP transistor. A waste of bandwidth and more to the point - a bloody waste of time.

Yes, Chris - please begin your reviews. It may save us all from having to endure the existence such sites. Thanks.

Cheers!

Noah Kadner helped make a DVD that compared the Sony to the DVX, its great and you can get it from Promax.com

interesting to find this thread here, i saw the test, it was terrible, what amazed me more was all the supporters of the test, it's interesting to see what folks will accept as fact...

Chris is you do decide to do a test like that you have my full support...

"I've often proposed doing our own formal comparisons here on DV Info, but of course in a more structured and carefully thought-out manner that makes solid technical sense --"

Kudos! I think that a detailed comparison of raw footage is very warranted and will be welcomed....same conditions, same position, same lighting, different camera. Technical data, good. Professional responses and opinions, good. Joe Schmoe voting, good. And, maybe, on comparing small clips, we could have the reviewer's comments as to why they think one is better than the other. Just some thoughts, but I think this is a brilliant idea Chris!

Clay

Chris,

One thing I would add: If, in the course of testing, you decide to post A/B comparisons video images or clips, and open the posts to voting, keep the identity the cameras that produced the images a secret.

For example, instead of posting "Here's an image from a PD-150 / Here's an image from a DVX100" you could post "Here's an image from Camera A / Here's an image from Camera B"

You could follow with something like: "Voting will be open until 12/31/03, and results will be posted thereafter..."

By keeping camera identities secret, you help eliminate some of the prejudices that we all bring to such evaluations. (Plus, you eliminate evangelists and ballot box stuffers...)

Good thought David, and I would second Stephen's comment on posting some full res clips for people to see also. Stills are great, but I really like to take moving footage and play it on my Tele, to see what those sorts of results will be like. Also it will allow those of us who are keen, tot ake them, do some image processing and see what sorts of looks we can get with the devices.

Too bad the cost and time is prohibitive, but I would have loved to have seen a DVInfo camera comparison DVD that we could all purchase with clips in various situations. Inside day, night, fast action, face closeups, dynamic ranges etc.


Aaron