Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Cameras and Camcorders › Other Camcorders › Comments re Double Your Pleasure, Jan 2005
These are my comments on the Videomaker, January 2005, Test Bench Double Your Pleasure. It was an easy to read introduction to the Samsung SCD6040 DuoCam. The text of the article supported the Strengths and Weaknesses and to an extent the Summary. The summary refers to many innovative features. I can come up with two (two lenses and the multi-card reader) but no more.
The Why Two? section was useful but could have used more detail regarding the why considering that the main point of this equipment is the two lenses. Not asking for an engineering article, just a little more detail. Video v still imaging always seems to come up when testing normal camcorders; maybe a re-usable sidebar.
The Manual Controls section starts off with a list of controls. I think the article should have mentioned the effectiveness and ergonomics of the manual controls. By ergonomics I mean how are the manual controls accessed (menus? buttons?) and in what modes? What are the AE modes? What can be displayed on the monitor while shooting?
The articles comment regarding the LCD is serious and is treated so. Im glad its called out in the Weaknesses section. Is there any chance you got a defective unit?
The Quality Control section says the SCD6040 shoots excellent video and stills. Period, end of sentence and no qualifications except for a bit about the stills. Are you saying its unequivocally excellent without regard to all others or by some frame of reference unmentioned? The video quality didnt make the Strengths so whats up?
Video quality is an area of great interest so why doesnt Videomaker devise a standard set of test shots (color, resolution, low light, stabilization and widescreen, etc) and then show each tested camcorders results with frame grabs in the magazine and clips on the web? Make it a little scientific and I think you would add a lot of value and generate a bunch more hits for your web site. While Im asking, why dont you do one set of shots on Auto and then demonstrate the manual controls by reshooting the standards? That would be something that no other site has. That level of detail would blow people away. If the manual controls are worth mentioning, then why not demonstrate?
Again, in the next section, Light, a frame grab or two (standard across reviews) for the magazine and a clip illustrating low light capabilities on the web would be great..
Other items I missed were:
Rate the user manual
Rate the sound
Is there motor noise?
Is there an accessory shoe?
Tape loading top or bottom
I guess if the article covered more it would be more than an introduction.
I rated this article on-line but wanted to expand a little.