Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analogue better than Digital?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:30:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my old
analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with the
image quality, after expecting so much from dv.

I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment? To
get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
camcorder?

At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
thing.

Alistair.

More about : analogue digital

Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You get what you pay for.

I remember using Hi-8 cameras about 13 years ago that produced fantastic
results compared to a lot of the junk on the market today.

I recall the Canon A1 and L1 (1/2" CCDs) being used around the broadcast
school I went to. (as well as JVC ENG cameras and a bunch of studio cameras
with interchangable backs)

I realize there's more to picture than JUST CCD size BUT I'd take one of
those old tanks over these 1/6 of an inch CCD consumer camcorders you see at
BestBuy.

Which miniDV camera did you try? What was your old analog Hi-8 cam?

If you've got the budget, look at a used market Sony VX2000 or something of
that ilk. (folks here will have other recommendations too - Canon XL & GL
series, Panasonic DVX-100 etc)

C.




"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
> old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
> the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
> To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.
>
> Alistair.
>
>
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 9:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.
>
> Alistair.

MiniDV has the potential for being far better than Hi8. The problem isn't
the format, but the priorities of the manufacturer. Low-end consumer
camcorder manufacturers seem to think that consumers prefer high-density
pixels in very small cameras. This requires small, dense CCDs, that are
artifact prone and have very poor low-light performance. Add to this the
fact that small lenses with fewer elements produce poorer images, and you
wind up with significantly degraded video.

I have a Sony VX2000 -- this is a prosumer 3-CCD miniDV camcorder. The
video it produces is absolutely stunning -- far better than anything you'll
ever get out of a Hi8 machine. The BBC uses VX2000s for ENG cameras.

The bottom line is the bottom line. If you want excellent video, you'll
need to spend the money on a higher-end camcorder. If low-light sensitivity
isn't critical, take a look at Sony's TRV-950 which has a street price, I
believe, around $1,500 US. The VX2100, successor to my camera, has street
price around $2,200 US.

>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:29:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If "video quality" is your goal and you don't want to spend a fortune, you
have to look at the used market.

I'm doing the rough arithemetic in my head - £300 is about $600USD?

For that price, I'd expect to find a decent Digital8mm or miniDV camera on
the used market.
You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm tape
is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though so
I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the Panasonic
3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)

Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
740, 320 etc.
You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of the
above - the Panasonics or Sonys.

Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for that
if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.

The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
they can market at the same price as last years model.

"Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a used
camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.

My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else eat
the depreciation.

C.


> What I want to know is if you guys would agree
> that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine rather
> than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alistair
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 12:29:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:D YWdnUZVoONMvMrfRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> If "video quality" is your goal and you don't want to spend a fortune, you
> have to look at the used market.
>
> I'm doing the rough arithemetic in my head - £300 is about $600USD?
>
> For that price, I'd expect to find a decent Digital8mm or miniDV camera on
> the used market.

Wasn't there a Sony Hi8 that was the precursor to the VX1000? I seem to
recall something in a similar form factor that produced very nice video.
Head wear would be a concern, but less so than with a miniDV machine as the
heads are larger and spin slower.

> You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
> comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm
tape
> is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though
so
> I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Someone recently posted about the 4 decent D8 machines that Sony used to
make -- I think they had numbers like 730 or 740. Those might be a good
bet. New D8s are garbage, though -- worse than low-end consumer miniDV
machines.

>
> Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the
Panasonic
> 3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
> find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)

Ugh. I haven't heard anything good about them (or seen anything good from
them). They were, evidently, designed to sell to consumers who had heard
about the advantages of 3-ccds, but weren't saavy enough to recognize poor
video. Sony and Canon have a couple of miniDVs in the $1000-1200 range that
are reported to do better than the low-end Panasonics.

>
> Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
> 740, 320 etc.

Yeah, those were the ones! ;) 

> You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of
the
> above - the Panasonics or Sonys.

The TRV900 was a wonderful machine. I'm still sorry I didn't buy one when I
had the chance.

>
> Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for that
> if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
> again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
> replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.

I don't know -- have you seen Sony's new HD machine? [begin Homer
Simpson]Hmmmm, HD! [end Homer Simpson]

>
> The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
> markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
> motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
> they can market at the same price as last years model.

I wonder, though, whether the manufacturers are following demand or creating
it. I can not, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to use
a video camera to take low-res (by comparison to digital still cameras)
poorly-saturated photographs. Then again, I also don't understand the
allure of cellphones that take pictures, either.

>
> "Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a
used
> camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.
>
> My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else
eat
> the depreciation.
>
> C.
>
>
> > What I want to know is if you guys would agree
> > that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine
rather
> > than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Alistair
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:18:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Ya' know, I think you're right about the pre-digital VX1000 predacessor.

Here's a neat little link:
http://www.sony.net/Products/handycam/history.html
I believe it's the CCD-VX1. I don't know anything about it though...

I've been toying with the idea of buying an older but higher-end Hi-8 camera
like that instead of something newer but digital. Wish I had some
side-by-side comparisons.

AGREED 100% about the new D8's - I looked at these a few weeks ago and was
appalled. Avoid like the plague.

I'd wager the manufacturers are trying to create the need for things like
camera-cell phones and "mega pixel stills from a video camera."

The former is a great way to get kids to spend more of their parents money
on high-end cellphone plans.

The latter is, as we know, a gimmick that results in both mediocre video and
stills but probably lets the drones at BestBuy sell "the next model up" to
unsuspecting baby-boomers.

Forgive the bitterness. I work in marketing. My greatest disappointment is
consumer apathy. I invest a great deal to educate my clients. Many still go
elsewhere to hear a nicer story - even when it isn't true.

It's a stinkin' shame.

C.


"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3bomlgF6iv8fsU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Wasn't there a Sony Hi8 that was the precursor to the VX1000? I seem to
> recall something in a similar form factor that produced very nice video.
> Head wear would be a concern, but less so than with a miniDV machine as
> the
> heads are larger and spin slower.
>
>> You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
>> comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm
> tape
>> is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though
> so
>> I wouldn't be too worried about that.
>
> Someone recently posted about the 4 decent D8 machines that Sony used to
> make -- I think they had numbers like 730 or 740. Those might be a good
> bet. New D8s are garbage, though -- worse than low-end consumer miniDV
> machines.
>
>>
>> Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the
> Panasonic
>> 3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
>> find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)
>
> Ugh. I haven't heard anything good about them (or seen anything good from
> them). They were, evidently, designed to sell to consumers who had heard
> about the advantages of 3-ccds, but weren't saavy enough to recognize poor
> video. Sony and Canon have a couple of miniDVs in the $1000-1200 range
> that
> are reported to do better than the low-end Panasonics.
>
>>
>> Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
>> 740, 320 etc.
>
> Yeah, those were the ones! ;) 
>
>> You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of
> the
>> above - the Panasonics or Sonys.
>
> The TRV900 was a wonderful machine. I'm still sorry I didn't buy one when
> I
> had the chance.
>
>>
>> Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for
>> that
>> if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
>> again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
>> replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.
>
> I don't know -- have you seen Sony's new HD machine? [begin Homer
> Simpson]Hmmmm, HD! [end Homer Simpson]
>
>>
>> The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
>> markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
>> motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
>> they can market at the same price as last years model.
>
> I wonder, though, whether the manufacturers are following demand or
> creating
> it. I can not, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to
> use
> a video camera to take low-res (by comparison to digital still cameras)
> poorly-saturated photographs. Then again, I also don't understand the
> allure of cellphones that take pictures, either.
>
>>
>> "Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a
> used
>> camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.
>>
>> My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else
> eat
>> the depreciation.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>> > What I want to know is if you guys would agree
>> > that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine
> rather
>> > than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Alistair
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:J4ydnd9qi8JRWMvfRVn-2A@rogers.com...
> Which miniDV camera did you try? What was your old analog Hi-8 cam?

Hi

The mini DV was Sony's low end effort - the HC14E. Specs here >
http://tinyurl.com/6j9ch

The analogue is a Sony handycam Hi8 CCD-TR760E pal.

The only reason I went digital is the analogue machine started chewing tapes
(and that awful charger connection broke too).

Alistair
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 1:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D 36gvk$76p$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> Don't expect to see any cheaper DV camcorders to
> really do as good of a job as these two high-end options.

Yeh fair enough, but I figured pound for pound (or dollar for dollar), a
miniDV would outclass a Hi8 - looks like I was wrong.

Alistair.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 11:38:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> schreef in bericht
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
> old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
> the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
> To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.

Alistair,

I also have an excellent Sony Hi8 camera (TR3200E). For capturing I use a
Canopus ADVC-55 analogue-to-DV converter costing about 200 Euros. The
resulting image quality can hardly be distinguished from good DV footage and
any editing program can process the DV-AVI files. A thought?
--
Lou van Wijhe
Website: http://home.hccnet.nl/jl.van.wijhe/
AntiSpam: Vervang INVALID in e-mail adres door NL
AntiSpam: Replace INVALID in e-mail address by NL
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:10:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks for the feedback and info (all three posters). Although some of the
advice is way over what I need for home use, I think you have all confirmed
my suspicion that bang for buck where the bang is image quality and the buck
is strictly limited, analogue is the way to go.

My old Hi8 showed no artifacts, the miniDV is awful in places (edges etc).
The Hi8 handled indoor low light just fine, the miniDV turns it into a grain
fest.
The colours on the Hi8 were bright and vibrant, with the miniDV even in
bright sunlight the colours looked flat.

Obviously the above comments are levelled at *entry level* miniDV, and I
fully appreciate that top end 4 figure miniDV is a different beast
alltogether, and if I win the lottery I'll go shopping for one.

But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old Hi8
and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!

Thanks guys.

Alistair
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:39:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If you've had the camera less than a month, most big stores will take it
back for a full refund. (if you haven't had it that long)

I'm sure it'll sell on eBay though. While you're there, keep looking for
deals on used digitals - those TRV's and the VX2000... who knows?

Good luck!

C.


"Alistair" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:7SN5e.44150$C12.7857@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Thanks for the feedback and info (all three posters). Although some of the
> advice is way over what I need for home use, I think you have all
> confirmed
> my suspicion that bang for buck where the bang is image quality and the
> buck
> is strictly limited, analogue is the way to go.
>
> My old Hi8 showed no artifacts, the miniDV is awful in places (edges etc).
> The Hi8 handled indoor low light just fine, the miniDV turns it into a
> grain
> fest.
> The colours on the Hi8 were bright and vibrant, with the miniDV even in
> bright sunlight the colours looked flat.
>
> Obviously the above comments are levelled at *entry level* miniDV, and I
> fully appreciate that top end 4 figure miniDV is a different beast
> alltogether, and if I win the lottery I'll go shopping for one.
>
> But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old
> Hi8
> and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Alistair
>
>
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:33:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

$$$

It costs Sony less to put a cheap, 1/6" CCD into these cameras because
they're already make millions of them for other devices.

Money trumps everything.




"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963353E041F6Cherhusband@216.196.97.136...

> The CCD's seem to be the weak point for low end cameras, so I don't
> understand why they don't just use an analog camera with the DV encoding
> and tape (miniDV or Digital8) built in. The camcorder already includes the
> A/D converter (pass through model) and the tape mechnism. Just replace the
> CCD with the older style analog sensors.
>
> Maybe there's a technical issue I'm missing, but it seems like a simple
> solution for acceptable low light performance in a low-budget digital
> camera.
>
> Anthony
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 6:25:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alistair" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> schreef in bericht
news:7SN5e.44150$C12.7857@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> ...
>
> But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old
> Hi8
> and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!

The external Canopus analog-to-DV converter does and you don't need a
driver.
--
Lou van Wijhe
Website: http://home.hccnet.nl/jl.van.wijhe/
AntiSpam: Vervang INVALID in e-mail adres door NL
AntiSpam: Replace INVALID in e-mail address by NL
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 7:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:r%U5e.2103$RQ7.1440@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> The manufacturers have consciously decided to trade video quality for
> compact size and the ability to shoot digital stills. Why they have done
> this is beyond me.
>
You are far too smart a person to get away with such a statement.

The cost of chip manufacturing is directly tied to the size of the chip

Using the same chip in a video camera that you use in a still camera
saves them on production cost and gives a wider market for the chip

Consumers like the idea of being able to take high resolution stills
with the same camera, and having a wider zoom range is nice too

The smaller chips allow the optics to be smaller and less expensive
a 10 to 1 zoom for a 2/3", 3 chip camera is cost thousands

Smaller optics mean smaller cameras. Consumers like a camera that
fits in a pocket. The smaller the camera, the more likely it will get used

If they make a consumer camera with quality and features desired by
professionals, what keeps the pros from just buying consumer cameras
instead of the more expensive pro cameras. As it is Sony sells slightly
beefed up consumer cameras as pro cameras.

Smaller chips and optics make for greater depth of field so the consumer
has a better chance of their pictures being in focus

Smaller optics make the auto functions easier and cheaper too. Pros
and serious hobbyist would rather have all manual controls, but they
are not appropriate for casual home movies. A consumer needs to be
able to pull the camera out of their pocket and shoot quickly, before the
shot no longer exist. If they had to calculate exposure and focus, they
might either miss the shot or wind up with bad focus and or exposure,
or nothing at all.

"Auto everything" almost insures that something recognizable will be
on the tape.

I know everybody wants a fully manual camera with 3 big chips, at a
consumer price, however big chips require big glass, and proper
manual controls for a big lens are more expensive than auto controls
on a tiny lens.

The bottom line is; if you want big chips with good glass and proper
manual controls you have to look into a serious pro camera, and be
willing to pay the price of that technology. This is certainly not a
concept that should be beyond you.

David
April 9, 2005 9:07:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:cfWdnZ9YRa2TdMrfRVn-qA@rogers.com...
> If you've had the camera less than a month, most big stores will take it
> back for a full refund. (if you haven't had it that long)
>
> I'm sure it'll sell on eBay though. While you're there, keep looking for
> deals on used digitals - those TRV's and the VX2000... who knows?
>
> Good luck!

Thanks, I've had it a few months so it'll be ebay. Before I do though I'm
going to do a side by side comparison by recording the same scene with both
camcorders to do a direct comparison. I'll be very interested in the
results.

I'll look out for used deals too :o )

Alistair
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:51:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David McCall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CPKdnfZJf-Y8scXfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:r%U5e.2103$RQ7.1440@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> The manufacturers have consciously decided to trade video quality for
>> compact size and the ability to shoot digital stills. Why they have done
>> this is beyond me.
>>
> You are far too smart a person to get away with such a statement.
>
> The cost of chip manufacturing is directly tied to the size of the chip
>
> Using the same chip in a video camera that you use in a still camera
> saves them on production cost and gives a wider market for the chip

First of all, they don't use the same chip in video cameras as in still
cameras. Video cameras use CCDs, whereas virtually all still cameras use
CMOS. Video cameras have relatively low-density sensors (most under 2
megapixels), whereas still cameras have high-density sensors (most over 3
megapixels, and good ones in the 5 to 8 megapixel range).


>
> Consumers like the idea of being able to take high resolution stills
> with the same camera, and having a wider zoom range is nice too

Video cameras don't take high-resolution stills -- not by comparison to even
inexpensive point-and-shoot digital still cameras. Video cameras take
stills at between 1 and 3 megapixel resolution. The higher end of the range
will permit reasonable 4 x 6 prints and, if you're not too picky, you might
even be able to pull off an 8 x 10. 1 and 2 megapixel prints aren't good
for anything but wallet-size and, perhaps, 3 x 5 inch snapshots.

Video cameras that use digital zoom rarely use the entire sensor but,
instead, sub-sample and average, resulting in blockiness. Digital zoom is
not a substitute for optical zoom for anyone but the least critical video
user. Moreover, no one, repeat, no one, can hand-hold a camcorder at more
than 10x. Anything beyond that is so shaky as to be useless.

Claiming high zoom ratios serves the same purpose as claiming high-density
CCDs -- it's advertising hype, designed to impress ignorant consumers.


>
> The smaller chips allow the optics to be smaller and less expensive
> a 10 to 1 zoom for a 2/3", 3 chip camera is cost thousands

My 3-chip 2/3" CCD cameras has a 10 to 1 zoom, and the entire unit cost only
$2100. Also note that smaller optics transmit less light, resulting in even
more diminished low-light capability -- it's pretty simple: the more glass,
the more light that gets refracted and transmitted to the sensor.

>
> Smaller optics mean smaller cameras. Consumers like a camera that
> fits in a pocket.

Not all consumers. The problem is, you can't have a small camera AND good
low-light performance. Consumers who want casual cameras for recording
birthday parties or their kids' ballet recital NEED low-light performance.
That's the primary gripe that I see in the rec.video newsgroup.

Note, too, that the smaller and lighter the camera, the less inertial
damping of shake, making videos produced by small cameras less stable.

> The smaller the camera, the more likely it will get used

Not if it can't be used indoors.

>
> If they make a consumer camera with quality and features desired by
> professionals, what keeps the pros from just buying consumer cameras
> instead of the more expensive pro cameras.

Why do you assume that all consumers want the same thing? Just as some
consumers are happy with a 19" television, others want a big-screen with
surround sound audio. I'm a consumer, an amateur and not a professional
videographer, and I want decent video quality from my camera. I don't want
stills from it -- I have a digital still camera for stills. I don't want
blue tooth. I don't want email. I don't want 180x zoom that is useless
beyond 10x.

> As it is Sony sells slightly
> beefed up consumer cameras as pro cameras.

You've got it backwards. Sony sells "consumerized" pro cameras to
consumers. The VX2000 is the consumer version of the PD-150. The VX2100 is
the consumer version of the PD-170. The major differences between the
consumer and pro versions are:

The pro versions take miniDV-CAM as well as miniDV, whereas the consumer
cameras are miniDV, only.

The proversions have dual mono balanced XLR mike inputs wheras the consumer
versions have a single stereo unbalanced miniplug input.

The pro versions come with a removable mono mike. The consumer versions
have a built in stereo mike.

The pro versions have a b&w viewfinder; the consumer versions have a color
viewfinder.

>
> Smaller chips and optics make for greater depth of field so the consumer
> has a better chance of their pictures being in focus

Depth of field is irrelevant to most camcorders, because it already so
great. That's one of the reasons video doesn't look like film -- video has
enormous depth of field.

>
> Smaller optics make the auto functions easier and cheaper too.

Not really. Stabilization is electronic in most consumer camcorders. Only
the prosumer and pro versions use optical image stabilization. There may be
incremental cost differences in servo size, but it's nominal as between a
1/6" and 2/3" ccd.

> Pros
> and serious hobbyist would rather have all manual controls, but they
> are not appropriate for casual home movies.

I'm a serious hobbyist, and I leave my VX2000 in full auto most of the time.

> A consumer needs to be
> able to pull the camera out of their pocket and shoot quickly, before the
> shot no longer exist.

I've never seen anyone carry around a camcorder for this purpose. Most
consumers use camcorders for special events -- travel, birthdays,
get-togethers, etc.

> If they had to calculate exposure and focus, they
> might either miss the shot or wind up with bad focus and or exposure,
> or nothing at all.

Have you ever heard the term "run and gun"? Pros and serious hobbyists need
to do the same thing. Do you think serious hobbyists use their cameras only
to make low-budget Hollywood epics?

>
> "Auto everything" almost insures that something recognizable will be
> on the tape.

My VX2000 is auto-everything.

>
> I know everybody wants a fully manual camera with 3 big chips,

I don't know of any fully manual 3-chip prosumer cameras. All of them,e.g.
the Sony VX series, Canon XL and GL, have fully automatic modes.

> at a
> consumer price, however big chips require big glass, and proper
> manual controls for a big lens are more expensive than auto controls
> on a tiny lens.

They're not that much more expensive. How much does blue chip in a camera
cost? How much does a higher-density CCD add? The maufacturers stuff most
consumer machines with unnecessary and junky gimmicks that add nothing to
the video quality, and serve only as marketing tools to the uneducated.

>
> The bottom line is; if you want big chips with good glass and proper
> manual controls you have to look into a serious pro camera, and be
> willing to pay the price of that technology.


Complete and utter nonsense. The VX series, the XL and GL, and even
Pansonics higher-end consumer 3-chippers are most decidely NOT "serious pro
cameras." For that matter Sony's and Canon's high-end consumer line can
produce a decent video image.

> This is certainly not a
> concept that should be beyond you.

It's a concept that is simply and completely wrong. The lack of video
quality that is part-and-parcel of most consumer camcorders is the result of
a conscious decision by manufacturers to focus on marketing gimmicks to
uneducated camera users; it has little, if anything, to do with cost of
manufacture.

>
> David
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:22:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> writes:

>First of all, they don't use the same chip in video cameras as in still
>cameras. Video cameras use CCDs, whereas virtually all still cameras use
>CMOS.

No, that's not true. At the high end, only Canon uses CMOS sensors
(from their own fab) for their DSLRs. All other manufacturers use CCDs.

When you drop down in price to the better point&shoot cameras, virtually
all (including the Canons) have CCD sensors.

CMOS sensors are mostly used in low-end digital cameras, with the
exception of Canon's DSLR sensors.

Dave
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 3ak8c$p5i$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> writes:
>
>>First of all, they don't use the same chip in video cameras as in still
>>cameras. Video cameras use CCDs, whereas virtually all still cameras use
>>CMOS.
>
> No, that's not true. At the high end, only Canon uses CMOS sensors
> (from their own fab) for their DSLRs. All other manufacturers use CCDs.
>
> When you drop down in price to the better point&shoot cameras, virtually
> all (including the Canons) have CCD sensors.

I just did a google search on:

nikon cmos
fuji cmos
olympus cmos
pentax cmos

Apparently, these four, in addition to Canon, use cmos sensors in their
digital still cameras.

>
> CMOS sensors are mostly used in low-end digital cameras, with the
> exception of Canon's DSLR sensors.

That's simply not true. Try the same google search that I just did.

Moreover, you simply miss the point: manufacturers do not use the same
sensors in digital still cameras as in camcorders.

>
> Dave
April 10, 2005 4:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Uhm, before I followed up on my "back to analogue" threat, I thought of one
other thing I should try - plugging the miniDV straight into the telly and
watching the footage, rather than watching captured footage via the PC. The
results were noticeably better than the caputerd footage burned to DVD, so -
it looks like I was a little bit off in blaming the miniDV camcorder for
lack of definition and clarity, as it is fine watching the raw playback.

For capture and burn to DVD the process is used was miniDV via firewire to
the PC, captured burned to DVD using Ulead Videostudio8. How do I improve
the capture to DVD process to avoid the loss of quality?

Alistair
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:02:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Don't use Video Studio 8?

<ducking>

Some folks love it - I'm suspicious. (but I also use professional leve tools
that some folks may not have access to). If it works, keep using it. In your
case, there's a problem causing a loss of quality "somewhere" in the chain.
Try Windows Movie Maker 2 perhaps? Download a free trial of Premiere
Elements while you're at it.

Seriously though, try some other tools and *FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE* don't try
to put more than 2 hours of video on a DVD! The more you squish onto a disc,
the lower the quality.

Field order: make sure your software respects proper field order (lower
first for DV). There may be other settings you can futz with - I'm just not
familiar with VS8.

C.


"Rocky" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:9B86e.8840$G8.8763@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

\> For capture and burn to DVD the process is used was miniDV via firewire
to
> the PC, captured burned to DVD using Ulead Videostudio8. How do I improve
> the capture to DVD process to avoid the loss of quality?
>
> Alistair
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:02:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Rocky" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:9B86e.8840$G8.8763@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Uhm, before I followed up on my "back to analogue" threat, I thought of
> one other thing I should try - plugging the miniDV straight into the telly
> and watching the footage, rather than watching captured footage via the
> PC. The results were noticeably better than the caputerd footage burned to
> DVD, so - it looks like I was a little bit off in blaming the miniDV
> camcorder for lack of definition and clarity, as it is fine watching the
> raw playback.
>
> For capture and burn to DVD the process is used was miniDV via firewire to
> the PC, captured burned to DVD using Ulead Videostudio8. How do I improve
> the capture to DVD process to avoid the loss of quality?

There's no quick answer to this. The problem you're having is going from
captured video (which is almost certainly DV-codec-encoded avi) to DVD. I
don't know Video Studio 8, but that's almost certainly the problem.

Take a look at tmpgenc, an inexpensive transcoder (the software that
converts the AVI file that you've captured into mpeg suitable for burning to
a DVD). It's slow, but it will produce very nice transcodes. Once you've
gotten your mpeg, you still need authoring software to burn the DVD. The
people who make tmpgenc have an inexpensive authoring package. The one that
I use, Adobe Encore, is probably more than you need (and want to spend).

With tmpgenc, I get output video from DVD that is very, very close in
quality to the original AVI (when viewed on my rear-projector big screen, or
smaller CRT monitors in the house -- on a true broadcast monitor, the
difference would be more apparent).


>
> Alistair
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:33:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bt7neF6jghe9U1@individual.net...
> There's no quick answer to this. The problem you're having is going from
> captured video (which is almost certainly DV-codec-encoded avi) to DVD. I
> don't know Video Studio 8, but that's almost certainly the problem.
>
> Take a look at tmpgenc, an inexpensive transcoder (the software that
> converts the AVI file that you've captured into mpeg suitable for burning
> to a DVD). It's slow, but it will produce very nice transcodes.

I'll give it a try thanks. Tmpgenc produces VCD files though, not DVD
files - isn't there a quality compromise there? I did a bot of reading and
VCD is mpeg1 and DVD files are mpeg2, not sure yet what the difference is
though....

Alistair.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:33:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:p cf6e.9153$G8.1876@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bt7neF6jghe9U1@individual.net...
>> There's no quick answer to this. The problem you're having is going from
>> captured video (which is almost certainly DV-codec-encoded avi) to DVD.
>> I don't know Video Studio 8, but that's almost certainly the problem.
>>
>> Take a look at tmpgenc, an inexpensive transcoder (the software that
>> converts the AVI file that you've captured into mpeg suitable for burning
>> to a DVD). It's slow, but it will produce very nice transcodes.
>
> I'll give it a try thanks. Tmpgenc produces VCD files though, not DVD
> files - isn't there a quality compromise there? I did a bot of reading and
> VCD is mpeg1 and DVD files are mpeg2, not sure yet what the difference is
> though....

tmpgenc transcodes to DVD-compliant mpeg. Once it's in mpeg, you need
another program to author in DVD format, i.e. convert the mpeg to vob files,
generate the index files, etc. The tmpgenc folks have another program that
does this, though I'm not familiar with it.

One word of warning: to get really high-quality out of tmpgenc will result
in very, very long transcode times, as much as 12-24 hours for two hours of
video. However, the quality gain is worth it.

>
> Alistair.
>
April 11, 2005 12:17:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

by <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in
news:p cf6e.9153$G8.1876@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk thusly:

> I'll give it a try thanks. Tmpgenc produces VCD files though, not DVD
> files - isn't there a quality compromise there?

TMPGEnc will encode to whatever MPEG you want, standard or non-standard
(eg: VCD, XVCD, SVCD, XSVCD, DVD, XDVD, MiniDVD, etc). It all depends on
how you set it up. Don't completely reply on the templates, and consider
using CQ for the Rate Control Mode.

IMO, there is CCE at the top, and then there is TMPGEnc just below,
everything else starts at number 3 and goes steadily downhill from
there. :) 

--

Tom
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:06:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3btha1F6k7glvU1@individual.net...
>
> "by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
> news:p cf6e.9153$G8.1876@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3bt7neF6jghe9U1@individual.net...
>>> There's no quick answer to this. The problem you're having is going
>>> from captured video (which is almost certainly DV-codec-encoded avi) to
>>> DVD. I don't know Video Studio 8, but that's almost certainly the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Take a look at tmpgenc, an inexpensive transcoder (the software that
>>> converts the AVI file that you've captured into mpeg suitable for
>>> burning to a DVD). It's slow, but it will produce very nice transcodes.
>>
>> I'll give it a try thanks. Tmpgenc produces VCD files though, not DVD
>> files - isn't there a quality compromise there? I did a bot of reading
>> and VCD is mpeg1 and DVD files are mpeg2, not sure yet what the
>> difference is though....
>
> tmpgenc transcodes to DVD-compliant mpeg. Once it's in mpeg, you need
> another program to author in DVD format, i.e. convert the mpeg to vob
> files, generate the index files, etc. The tmpgenc folks have another
> program that does this, though I'm not familiar with it.
>
> One word of warning: to get really high-quality out of tmpgenc will result
> in very, very long transcode times, as much as 12-24 hours for two hours
> of video. However, the quality gain is worth it.

Cool, quality is what I am after so if it takes a while so be it! Thanks for
the tips.

Alistair
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:51:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> IMO, there is CCE at the top, and then there is TMPGEnc just below,
> everything else starts at number 3 and goes steadily downhill from
> there. :) 


Those of us who use Procoder would beg to differ as to the number two and
three positions. <vbseg>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:56:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

1) Older Sony analog camcorders that went for $1000+ were among the
'better' built camcorders - price alone meant they could drop oodles of
goodies into one. Newer digital models? They really don't care anymore
- the pro-sumer end of camcorders is where they drop in the goodies.
Cheaper end? They only care about pricing it higher than most other
brands at the same price range because they know people will buy Sony on
name alone. Which is why most consumer DV camcorders can't seem to
record the full 500+ lines of video resolution onto the DV tape.

2) For a dirt-cheap DV camcorder, www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot
deals. eg. last year, it was the Sharp VL-Z3U for $150 or so AR.
Always a sale going on somewhere. But don't expect these to be any
better than your Hi8.

3) www.ebay.com is a good place for excellent deals on 3CCD and high-end
camcorders. eg. trv900 for the $500-900 range.

4) More reviews with resolution charts here:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/

eg. Sony TRV-480 Digital8 camcorder tested to: "The DCR-TRV480 produced
approximately 249.3 lines of vertical resolution and 274.8 lines of
horizontal resolution"

eg. Panasonic 3CCD PV-GS150 tested to: "In 4:3 mode, the PV-GS150 gave
us approximately 480.8 lines of horizontal resolution and approximately
271.5 lines of vertical resolution at its best"
April 11, 2005 9:01:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in
news:Sfv6e.47497$vL3.12221@bignews4.bellsouth.net thusly:

>> IMO, there is CCE at the top, and then there is TMPGEnc just below,
>> everything else starts at number 3 and goes steadily downhill from
>> there. :) 
>
> Those of us who use Procoder would beg to differ as to the number two
> and three positions. <vbseg>

I vote for the 3rd position. Hope that helps. ;) 

BTW, if you haven't had the time to read my reply to your earlier reply
regarding the dropped frames, I found that the dropped frames occur at
every 100 seconds, not just 3:20. I still haven't found a good
explanation why the dropped frames occur at such a consistent interval.

If you have any further thought on the matter, please reply back to the
other thread as to not hijack this one.

--

Tom
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Tom" <Tom@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9635660CF4438Tominvalidcom@news.supernews.com...
>
> Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in
> news:Sfv6e.47497$vL3.12221@bignews4.bellsouth.net thusly:
>
> >> IMO, there is CCE at the top, and then there is TMPGEnc just below,
> >> everything else starts at number 3 and goes steadily downhill from
> >> there. :) 
> >
> > Those of us who use Procoder would beg to differ as to the number two
> > and three positions. <vbseg>
>
> I vote for the 3rd position. Hope that helps. ;) 
>
> BTW, if you haven't had the time to read my reply to your earlier reply
> regarding the dropped frames, I found that the dropped frames occur at
> every 100 seconds, not just 3:20. I still haven't found a good
> explanation why the dropped frames occur at such a consistent interval.
>
> If you have any further thought on the matter, please reply back to the
> other thread as to not hijack this one.

Sorry, I can't look for the other thread.

If you're dropping frames periodically, it suggests a number of
possibilities:

1. Your drives have thermal compensation.
2. Some with a higher-priority interrupt is interfering. Take a look at
processes and see what's running.
3. Your hard drives have some kind of buffering problem. Again, I'd
suspect something running in background.


>
> --
>
> Tom
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

100 seconds?

Sounds like you've got a background process doing "something" at regular
intervals.

C.



"Tom" <Tom@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9635660CF4438Tominvalidcom@news.supernews.com...
>
> Chuck U. Farley <chuckufarleynot@dyslexia.com> wrote in
> news:Sfv6e.47497$vL3.12221@bignews4.bellsouth.net thusly:
>
>>> IMO, there is CCE at the top, and then there is TMPGEnc just below,
>>> everything else starts at number 3 and goes steadily downhill from
>>> there. :) 
>>
>> Those of us who use Procoder would beg to differ as to the number two
>> and three positions. <vbseg>
>
> I vote for the 3rd position. Hope that helps. ;) 
>
> BTW, if you haven't had the time to read my reply to your earlier reply
> regarding the dropped frames, I found that the dropped frames occur at
> every 100 seconds, not just 3:20. I still haven't found a good
> explanation why the dropped frames occur at such a consistent interval.
>
> If you have any further thought on the matter, please reply back to the
> other thread as to not hijack this one.
>
> --
>
> Tom
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Wow David.

I'm glad you've decided to weigh in on this and other topics!
271.5 lines vertical with the PVGS150? YUK!

You're bang on with your assessment of Sony strategic marketing.
It goes beyond simply "not caring" - it's a conscious choice by Sony to
create a very big gap between consumer and professional cameras.

People have commented on the TRV900 being the last "great" camera in the TRV
line.
Some have suggested Sony's dropped the ball since then. I put a different
spin on it - the '900 was actually bad for their bottom line, taking too
much away from it prosumer/professional division.

It's a shame I can't buy a new Sony camera for what's in my budget but I'll
happily go to the used market to get a VX2000 or PD150 if Sony doesn't give
me any options. (or a Panasonic DVX100 ;) 

C.


"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D 3eoah$dhr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> 1) Older Sony analog camcorders that went for $1000+ were among the
> 'better' built camcorders - price alone meant they could drop oodles of
> goodies into one. Newer digital models? They really don't care anymore -
> the pro-sumer end of camcorders is where they drop in the goodies.
>
> Cheaper end? They only care about pricing it higher than most other
> brands at the same price range because they know people will buy Sony on
> name alone. Which is why most consumer DV camcorders can't seem to record
> the full 500+ lines of video resolution onto the DV tape.
>
> 2) For a dirt-cheap DV camcorder, www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals.
> eg. last year, it was the Sharp VL-Z3U for $150 or so AR. Always a sale
> going on somewhere. But don't expect these to be any better than your
> Hi8.
>
> 3) www.ebay.com is a good place for excellent deals on 3CCD and high-end
> camcorders. eg. trv900 for the $500-900 range.
>
> 4) More reviews with resolution charts here:
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
>
> eg. Sony TRV-480 Digital8 camcorder tested to: "The DCR-TRV480 produced
> approximately 249.3 lines of vertical resolution and 274.8 lines of
> horizontal resolution"
>
> eg. Panasonic 3CCD PV-GS150 tested to: "In 4:3 mode, the PV-GS150 gave us
> approximately 480.8 lines of horizontal resolution and approximately 271.5
> lines of vertical resolution at its best"
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:22:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:D 3eoah$dhr$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> 1) Older Sony analog camcorders that went for $1000+ were among the
> 'better' built camcorders - price alone meant they could drop oodles of
> goodies into one. Newer digital models? They really don't care anymore -
> the pro-sumer end of camcorders is where they drop in the goodies. Cheaper
> end? They only care about pricing it higher than most other brands at the
> same price range because they know people will buy Sony on name alone.
> Which is why most consumer DV camcorders can't seem to record the full
> 500+ lines of video resolution onto the DV tape.
>
> 2) For a dirt-cheap DV camcorder, www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals.
> eg. last year, it was the Sharp VL-Z3U for $150 or so AR. Always a sale
> going on somewhere. But don't expect these to be any better than your
> Hi8.
>
> 3) www.ebay.com is a good place for excellent deals on 3CCD and high-end
> camcorders. eg. trv900 for the $500-900 range.
>
> 4) More reviews with resolution charts here:
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
>
> eg. Sony TRV-480 Digital8 camcorder tested to: "The DCR-TRV480 produced
> approximately 249.3 lines of vertical resolution and 274.8 lines of
> horizontal resolution"
>
> eg. Panasonic 3CCD PV-GS150 tested to: "In 4:3 mode, the PV-GS150 gave us
> approximately 480.8 lines of horizontal resolution and approximately 271.5
> lines of vertical resolution at its best"

Thanks for the details and links, I'll be checking them out.

Alistair,
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:14:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> writes:

>> No, that's not true. At the high end, only Canon uses CMOS sensors
>> (from their own fab) for their DSLRs. All other manufacturers use CCDs.
>> When you drop down in price to the better point&shoot cameras, virtually
>> all (including the Canons) have CCD sensors.

>I just did a google search on:

>nikon cmos
>fuji cmos
>olympus cmos
>pentax cmos

>Apparently, these four, in addition to Canon, use cmos sensors in their
>digital still cameras.

Well, which ones? I found the Nikon D2X, but it's not available yet.
There's also the D2Hs, also not available, with the LBCAST sensor that's
similar to CMOS, but not the same.

Fuji's high-end cameras use what they call a "Super CCD" sensor, with
the sensing sites on a square grid rotated 45 degrees. There's also
another variant with two different size sensors per location.

The Olympus E-1 and E-300 use CCD sensors. Some Olympus microscopes
have a CMOS camera accessory, but that's not for general photography.

The Pentax *ist cameras use CCD sensors.

So far, this doesn't seem to support your assertion that "virtually all
still cameras use CMOS". Which still cameras did you have in mind?

>> CMOS sensors are mostly used in low-end digital cameras, with the
>> exception of Canon's DSLR sensors.

>That's simply not true. Try the same google search that I just did.

I did. See above. The results do not support you.

>Moreover, you simply miss the point: manufacturers do not use the same
>sensors in digital still cameras as in camcorders.

I'll agree with you on that. But most of the sensors in both types of
cameras are CCDs - they are different in other respects, for various
reasons.

Dave
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:19:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> People have commented on the TRV900 being the last "great" camera in the TRV
> It's a shame I can't buy a new Sony camera for what's in my budget but I'll
> happily go to the used market to get a VX2000 or PD150 if Sony doesn't give

well, if you do ever get the $$, thankfully, there's the excellent
Canon XL-series line of DV camcorders....
!