[jlames]

As I said, it really depends on what your ultimate plans are. Kiddie-cams are kiddie-cams HD or SD and take great "pictures" but fall into the "consumer", point-and-shoot market. The XL1 is a great example of a Standard Definition (SD) "pro-sumer" with the ability to change lenses and make internal modifications via a limited menu and the JVC HD 100 does the same thing in the HD arena as does the Canon in the "pro-sumer" (professional/consumer) arena but you have to separate consumer pictures from Pro-sumer photography from professional cinematography. We shot an entire western sports series for cable, Mounted Shooting, using six JVCs because in the right hands, a JVC or any 1/3" HD camera can get the jub done but you have to understand WHY it gets the job done. The eye sees only in two dimensions; width and height. You have to create the third dimension depth, using the functions of the camera and the two most important aspects to creating depth is light and color. Light is defined as "latitude or the number of "stops" between total black and total white. The more shades of gray you have to work with, the better you can define depth and that means realism and drama. Unfortunately, one of the factors in latitude is CCD chip size and the 1/3" CCDs found in the prosumer JVCs and Canons, if you know what you're doing, can provide 6 or so stops of latitude or change between black and white. The Sony XDCAM, a 1/2" chip can provide 9 and a 2/3" chip like the Panasonic or Sony pro series can produce 11 stops. Now, these can be stretched to more stops but you have to know how to do it through the menu settings. If you'[ve ever noticed the "flat" look of today's television offerings, that's latitude. It's a combination of light and the lens and camera that handle it that contributes to depth, that and color and how it affects the medium which goes to chip size and depth of field which is a function of lens/camera and chip size. Directors manipulate where your point of attention is at any given moment. An example is when the background and/or foreground is out of focus and the subject, perhaps a speaking charagter, is in focus. This draws the viewers' attention to where the Director wants it. You can't do that with video (without assistance from a Pro35 or the like). So you see, it's like being a doctor. There's so much knowledge from different sources you need to draw from to formulate a correct conclusion that "which camera do you recommend" is a difficult question to answer. Through the other boards, I get so many statements that amount to, "well, so-and-so has inter-changeable lenses so it must be best. And my question is, "How many times do you actually change lenses; how many lenses do you have and finally, what would prompt your change lenses not to mention that, unless you're using a 2/3" camera or a 1/2" with an adapter, there aren't that many lenses out there. Finish it off with the fact that most quality lenses cost more than the camera itself and the questions become even more silly. The principle lens we shot "El Papel", our recent pilot, with was a $65k Fujinon "George Lucas" lens. It's a very specific lens with medium depth of focus that requires exact measurements be taken between the subject and the focal plane not to mention the distance betwen the set dressing and focal plane. I don't say this to be arrogant but rather to articulate the importance of knowing what you're doing to achieve your ultimate expectations. If you're interested in creating lasting memories that replicate the then-current situation, don't have alot of experience and want to hide imperfections like facial blemishes and wrinkles on the subjects, stay with standard definitions and find a Canon XL1. They're cheap and easy to find and acquire. If on the other hand you want to get into HD and have the time to spend on learning the basics of cinematography, the new Sony EX1 or the JVC HD 100 (I know, the 250 is out but the 100 is enough right now and it's less expensive) might be for you. Just stay away from the kiddy-cams. The results will look like prom footage from a cell phone. Cinematography isn't rocket science. It's fun and it's logical and you'd be surprised at the results you'll see in your work product. We shoot educational productions through 2nd Unit where non-professionals get hands-on experience and education on all the things I've spoken of here and it might be beneficial for you. You're always invited to work the crew if you're in the area. Finally, I almost forgot; lighting is equally important as is a good CALIBRATED monitor. The eyepiece nor the flip-out LCD on the camera don't represent accurately what the camera is seeing. Get good, quality lighting or rent it; 5600 for daylight (white) and 3200k for indoor (yellow or incandescent). Nothing looks worse than over- or under-lit scenes and this is where latitude comes into play. Your camera, lens and lighting have to work in concert to have shots gradually fall off into black giving the impression of depth. Take a look at your favorite TV shows and see how many times the character is lit such that 1) half his face is lit and the other half subtly falls off into the dark background or 2) half his face is lit and the other half quickly turns into inky blackness. The background of a scene, any scene whether it's on film or in your home, rarely just becomes inky black. The eye perceives 16.7M shades of color but only 16 shades of gray. The eye compensates by "blending" colors to create other shades of gray. Thus, a common image enhancement technique is to assign specific digital number (DN) values (or ranges of DN values) to specific colors, thereby increasing the contrast of particular DN values with the surrounding pixels in an image. An entire image can be converted from a gray scale to a color image, or portions of an image that represent the DN values of interest can be colored so the camera can create thousands of gray colors to emulate what the eye-brain combination creates and we perceive which is exactly what photography is all about anyway. This is where things like "latitude" come in and a quality image block or prism come into play in the more expensive, larger CCD/CMOS chip cameras but that's a discussion for another day. For now, suffice to say 1) Stay away from $700 hand-held kiddy-cams, 2) decide where you want your photography to be a year from now and 3) decide if you want HD or can settle for SD imaging. An important note here is that analog vs. digital has nothing to do with HD vs. SD. It's all digital.