<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Invaluable Guide to the AG-HVX200</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/</link>
	<description>"Everybody who cares for his art, seeks the essence of his own technique." -- Dziga Vertov (1922)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:49:32 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-19367</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/#comment-19367</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve shot with both the Sony XDCAM HD and the Panasonic, they both look very good. They both do 24P. I&#039;ve not seen them side-by-side, however. My qualitative impression is both cameras do a fine job. Personally, I like the smaller form factor of the HVX-200, and given the price difference, I&#039;d rather have the smaller cameras and the P2 cards which offer faster media transfer to the host. On the other hand, the Blu-Ray disks you shoot with can be used as archive backup, and with the P2 system you have to create your own archives. One more step to worry about, but not so bad as the detractors make it out to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve shot with both the Sony XDCAM HD and the Panasonic, they both look very good. They both do 24P. I&#8217;ve not seen them side-by-side, however. My qualitative impression is both cameras do a fine job. Personally, I like the smaller form factor of the HVX-200, and given the price difference, I&#8217;d rather have the smaller cameras and the P2 cards which offer faster media transfer to the host. On the other hand, the Blu-Ray disks you shoot with can be used as archive backup, and with the P2 system you have to create your own archives. One more step to worry about, but not so bad as the detractors make it out to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Galford</title>
		<link>http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-19356</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Galford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kino-eye.com/2006/05/29/hvx200-guide/#comment-19356</guid>
		<description>Hi, I got wind of your blog from Tom White at MIT. I had called to ask him and now I ask you : how does the 23.98 output of the HVX200 compare with the HDXDCAM that MIT purchased? Have you seen both? Sony&#039;s lower end products don&#039;t do 23.98 well at all: Panasonic has that end of the market sown up. But I wondered how the XDCAM looks.
By the way, I totlaly share your feelings about avoiding Microsost products as much as possible, if &quot;only&quot; on ethical grounds!
Brian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I got wind of your blog from Tom White at MIT. I had called to ask him and now I ask you : how does the 23.98 output of the HVX200 compare with the HDXDCAM that MIT purchased? Have you seen both? Sony&#8217;s lower end products don&#8217;t do 23.98 well at all: Panasonic has that end of the market sown up. But I wondered how the XDCAM looks.<br />
By the way, I totlaly share your feelings about avoiding Microsost products as much as possible, if &#8220;only&#8221; on ethical grounds!<br />
Brian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

