Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Highest resolution Viewfinder.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 8:41:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of
the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I
don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that
Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was
rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good
enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:39:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

James Silverton wrote:
> I am beginning to be convinced that lcd viewfinders are the trend of
> the future even if that sounds like a pompous prognostication since I
> don't even own a zlr (g). However, am I correct in thinking that
> Minolta currently makes the highest resolution viewfinder? I was
> rather impressed by their "superfine evf" which seemed almost good
> enough for someone, like me, used to a film slr.

On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x
480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as
"900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000
pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV. In use, it was
definitely better than lower-resolution finders, although I suspect you
would may need something approaching 1024 x 768 pixels to be as good as an
SLR. [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent the camera
back for a refund].

What is useful in some cameras (such as the Panasonic FZ20) is the ability
to enlarge the central section of the EVF (and LCD) when manual focussing
is engaged, allowing for a finer adjustment.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 8:18:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Hi David, you say

> [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
> the camera back for a refund].

With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment, and at
least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies
than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.

The best!

Julio.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:45:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

J.S.Pitanga wrote:
> Hi David, you say
>
>> [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
>> the camera back for a refund].
>
> With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
> Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment,
> and at least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2
> with lies than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.
>
> The best!
>
> Julio.

Well, I didn't. The LCD swivel finder was very tinny (not robust), the
JPEG in-camera conversion was poor, etc. etc., and those factors together
outweighed any positive rating for the viewfinder.

For a wide-angle camera, you can't beat the Nikon Coolpix 8400 (24mm
wide-angle) and the best value telephoto stabilised camera is, in my
opinion, the Panasonic FZ20.

David
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 10:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:18:40 -0200, J.S.Pitanga wrote:

> Hi David, you say
>
>> [The lying about the EVF resolution was one reason I sent
>> the camera back for a refund].
>
> With or without lie, A2's EVF is the best I am aware of on the market.
> Being interested in photography rather than in biblical punishment, and at
> least as far the EVF is concerned, I would happily take the A2 with lies
> than another camera with a worse EVF without lies.

Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers use. If
they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or 230k? Look them up.
Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if we say *everybody* is
lying.

--
John Bean

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing (Oscar Wilde)
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 11:02:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

John Bean wrote:
[]
> Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
> use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
> 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
> we say *everybody* is lying.

Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think there
should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B components
and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different standard
viewfinders.

Cheers,
David
January 27, 2005 9:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

In article <34ipmmF4b7hpqU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com says...
> John Bean wrote:
> []
> > Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
> > use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
> > 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
> > we say *everybody* is lying.
>
> Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think there
> should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B components
> and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different standard
> viewfinders.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
>

Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of the camera
with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges comparison.

The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished photograph,
which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.

The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as such. It
is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera resolution, but
until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is labeled isnt going to
help.

If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD monitor on
your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it with an EVF????

What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good enough to
use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO.

Is it likely to be better in the near future??? NO!

Logic and reason needs to be used in the purchase of a digital camera (just
like when you buy anything else).

No camera manufacturer claims a full resolution EVF simply because they dont
exist, and are not likely to exist with current technology.

Its the major difference between a "ZLR" camera and a DSLR camera, and one of
the biggest reasons that a lot of people went DSLR.

With a DSLR you get a reflection of the actual image in the viewfinder NOT an
electronic reconstruction of the view. In order to get this, you must
sacrifice "live preview" and histograms (the histograms are only available on
REVIEW in a DSLR)

All things being equal the highest pixel count in an EVF will be the highest
resolution. The only time there would be any confusion in this area would be
if the manufacturers started counting them differently.

The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change it, the
highest number is STILL the highest number.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <34ipmmF4b7hpqU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com
> says...
>> John Bean wrote:
>> []
>>> Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
>>> use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
>>> 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies if
>>> we say *everybody* is lying.
>>
>> Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think
>> there should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B
>> components and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a different
>> standard viewfinders.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of the
> camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges
> comparison.

Yes, I agree. The camera typically has sensor quads (e.g. GRGB) and
interpolates to pixel quads, resulting in an 8MP camera having 2MP red,
2MP blue and 4MP green (arrangements can vary). The typical 1024 x 768
display has 786,432 sites each providing independant R, G and B pixels.

> The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished
> photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.

I think there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the consumer.

> The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as
> such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera
> resolution, but until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is
> labeled isnt going to help.
>
> If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD
> monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it
> with an EVF????

Yes, you can put 9.2 Mpixels on the desktop:

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/

although you do need 22.1 inches to reach that incredible resolution!

> What we are getting is the best they can do so far. Are they good
> enough to use when manually focussing??? The short answer is NO.
>
> Is it likely to be better in the near future??? NO!
>
> Logic and reason needs to be used in the purchase of a digital camera
> (just like when you buy anything else).
>
> No camera manufacturer claims a full resolution EVF simply because
> they dont exist, and are not likely to exist with current technology.
>
> Its the major difference between a "ZLR" camera and a DSLR camera,
> and one of the biggest reasons that a lot of people went DSLR.
>
> With a DSLR you get a reflection of the actual image in the
> viewfinder NOT an electronic reconstruction of the view. In order to
> get this, you must sacrifice "live preview" and histograms (the
> histograms are only available on REVIEW in a DSLR)
>
> All things being equal the highest pixel count in an EVF will be the
> highest resolution. The only time there would be any confusion in
> this area would be if the manufacturers started counting them
> differently.
>
> The way they count them now is just fine, as long as they dont change
> it, the highest number is STILL the highest number.

Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen
to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200
pixels, not "900,000 pixels" as promoted by one manufacturer. Being
honest about the display resolution is something the consumer deserves, I
believe.

I do agree with you that this is one area of the EVF that needs drastic
improvement.

Cheers,
David
January 27, 2005 7:52:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

In article <35saquF4r89rfU1@individual.net>, david-taylor@invalid.com says...
> Well, I dispute that - if a monitor is VGA resolution (the best I've seen
> to date) then it should be described as 640 x 480 pixels, i.e. 307,200
> pixels, not "900,000 pixels" as promoted by one manufacturer. Being
> honest about the display resolution is something the consumer deserves, I
> believe.
>
> I do agree with you that this is one area of the EVF that needs drastic
> improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>


I think you may have missed the point I was making (because I was making it
badly).

The point is this:

At this time its NOT POSSIBLE to cram as many pixels into the space it takes
for an EVF as we would like to have.

There is at this time a limit on the "dot pitch" of the screen, and they just
cant make the dots small enough to raise the resolution of an EVF to where it
truly needs to be.

I grant you that some manufacturers cloud the issue by telling us the number
of "color dots" they have and calling them "pixels", but most of us are smart
enough to know better.

Ya' gotta' recognize "sales hype" for what it is. I dont consider a camera
to be good or bad by how it lives up to its "HYPE", I judge it by the
pictures I get from it.

Here is a "for instance".. Fuji sells its S7000 as a camera that can produce
12 mpixel images... and it can produce them, but its NOT a 12 mpixel camera,
its a 6 mpixel camera (and a damn fine one when its used properly).

I bought one, and sometimes (only sometimes) I actually let the raw converter
in Photoshop interpolate the image to 12 mpixels.. Most of the time I stick
with the 6 mpixel file, and if I need it bigger, I make it bigger LATER, with
the apropriate software, which does a better job than the raw converter.
(usually Genuine Fractals).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:30:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <34ipmmF4b7hpqU1@individual.net>,
> david-taylor@invalid.com
> says...
>> John Bean wrote:
>> []
>>> Indeed. Not only that, it's *the same* lies that all manufacturers
>>> use. If they use a QVGA (320x240) display do they call it 75k or
>>> 230k? Look them up. Minolta's 900k for a VGA display is only lies
>>> if
>>> we say *everybody* is lying.
>>
>> Indeed. This should be brought out more clearly. I don't think
>> there should be one standard for image pixels (a pixel has R G & B
>> components and can represent a full colour spectrum) and a
>> different
>> standard viewfinders.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> Actually there isnt a double standard... Comparing the Mpixels of
> the
> camera with the pixels in a viewfinder is an apples/oranges
> comparison.
>
> The mp the camera is capable of is in reference to the finished
> photograph, which USUALLY (but not always) ends up in a print.
>
> The viewfinder is simply an LCD monitor, and is judged/measured as
> such. It is a SHAME that evf technology hasnt caught up to camera
> resolution, but until it does catch up, changing the way the evf is
> labeled isnt going to help.
>
> If you cant put a 6 or 8 megapixel image at 100% size on a 19" LCD
> monitor on your desktop (and you cant), how are you going to do it
> with an EVF????
>
>
I don't think that anyone would really need the full resolution of a
6-8 meg image in an eyepiece. Indeed, I don't think many people's eyes
could resolve that. The question is what resolution would be needed in
a satisfactory viewfinder. I don't think any ZLR has attained that but
I wonder if about twice that provided by Minolta would suffice. I
don't own one but examining one in store persuades me they have not
far to go.


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA
January 27, 2005 8:36:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

In article <oeudndeGnpLg9mTcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, not.jim.silverton@erols.com
says...
> I don't think that anyone would really need the full resolution of a
> 6-8 meg image in an eyepiece. Indeed, I don't think many people's eyes
> could resolve that. The question is what resolution would be needed in
> a satisfactory viewfinder. I don't think any ZLR has attained that but
> I wonder if about twice that provided by Minolta would suffice. I
> don't own one but examining one in store persuades me they have not
> far to go.
>
>
> --
> James V. Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland, USA
>

I think they need to go to twice what is currently available, but I dont
think its going to be achieved soon, because of the size problem.

I have Several EVF cameras, and NONE of them are easily usable for focusing,
even the ones that "magnify" the view when manually focusing are not easy to
use with a "busy" image. There is simply not enough resolution in the EVF.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 11:24:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

The magnifying bit probably compounds
the problem. I have one of those hood
things that snap over the LCD and it has
a 3x magnifying lens, it just makes the
pixels look larger.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:17:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Larry wrote:
[]
> I think you may have missed the point I was making (because I was
> making it badly).
>
> The point is this:
>
> At this time its NOT POSSIBLE to cram as many pixels into the space
> it takes for an EVF as we would like to have.

I really picked up more on the point of manufacturers deliberately
misleading customers about the number of pixels in the EVF or LCD. I
suspect that it would be possible to make a good enough LCD - but probably
not cost effectively just yet.

I used a 640 x 480 EVF (VGA resolution) for a while and it was quite good,
whether I would need twice the number of pixels or even twice the
resolution for my purposes I don't know. I have the feeling that VGA
resolution might actually be good enough.

Certainly, the Panasonic FZ20 has fewer pixels in the display but manual
focussing with the LCD is no problem because of the central area
enlargment as soon as the manual focus ring is moved. I'd be interested
to know how that compares with the "magnifying EVF" cameras you have, as
far as ease of focussing is concerned.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:19:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

irwell wrote:
> The magnifying bit probably compounds
> the problem. I have one of those hood
> things that snap over the LCD and it has
> a 3x magnifying lens, it just makes the
> pixels look larger.

This is different - they use a smaller area of the sensor and present that
magnified up on the LCD or EVF. It's more like zooming in to 1:1
magnification with your image processing software, and presenting a small,
central selection of that on the viewfinder.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:51:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution -
640 x
> 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as

> "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over
300,000
> pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV.

Standard TV is around 320 x 240 (QVGA; e.g., Quarter VGA).
http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/technology/forma...

--
National Television Standards Committee (NTSC). 4:3
horizontal-to-vertical picture aspect ratio. Most television is
interlaced, not progressive-scan. There are two fields per frame. This
format specifies 525 lines total (242 active lines per field) but not
how many pixels across. Horizontal resolution is typically 330 pixels
across. TV-type pixels are usually not square.
--
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 12:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

callen@efn.org wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution -
>> 640 x 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly
>> described as
>
>> "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over
>> 300,000 pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV.
>
> Standard TV is around 320 x 240 (QVGA; e.g., Quarter VGA).
> http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/technology/forma...
>
> --
> National Television Standards Committee (NTSC). 4:3
> horizontal-to-vertical picture aspect ratio. Most television is
> interlaced, not progressive-scan. There are two fields per frame. This
> format specifies 525 lines total (242 active lines per field) but not
> how many pixels across. Horizontal resolution is typically 330 pixels
> across. TV-type pixels are usually not square.

Yes, Kell factor and all that. With today's TVs, though, there can be a
framestore in the receiver which means that the resolution can be nearer
to VGA. The horizontal resolution is much greater than 330 pixels. (For
example, British TV is 6MHz bandwidth and 52us scan time, so that's about
312 cycles per picture width, or 624 pixels. You need a little more than
that to avoid aliasing, and typically 720 and 768 are the number of pixels
across a digital TV picture).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 4:28:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

callen@efn.org <callen@efn.org> wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> On the Minolta A2 they have a viewfinder which is VGA resolution - 640 x
>> 480 pixels. This is (in my opinion) highly misleadingly described as
>> "900,000 pixels" on the camera box and elsewhere - it is just over 300,000
>> pixels. The is the same resolution as a standard TV.

> Standard TV is around 320 x 240 (QVGA; e.g., Quarter VGA).

Nope. VGA.

> http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/technology/forma...

Claims for NTSC:
"525 lines total (242 active lines per field)"
=> vertical 2*242=484 active lines (2 fields => 1 frame)
"typically 330 pixels across"
=> 330x484
Claims for PAL (and SECAM):
"625 lines, 290 active lines per field"
=> vertical 2*290=580 activel lines (2 fields => 1 frame)
"Typically, it is 425 pixels across"
=> 425x580

Both sound very much off base in the horizontal resolution. Yes,
TV pixels are not square, but they are not that much deformed!
Perhaps he means line pairs 'across' (or the much less relevant
chrominance resolution??), so we get 660x484 and 850x580? This ---
though a bit off base --- matches with
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Cha...
which says:
NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution
360 x 480 chrominance resolution
1/59.94s per field (1/29.97s per frame) (see other sources)

PAL: 720 x 576 luminance resolution
360 x 576 chrominance resolution
1/25s per field (1/50s per frame)

Note that the eye is much more luminance than chrominance
sensitive (compare JPEG!)

DVDs also use 720 pixel horizontzally. Your TV set may not be
able to display the full resolution, though.

see also:
http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm
http://tangentsoft.net/video/glossary.html

Thus we get close to 640x480, i.e. VGA, much closer than QVGA.
VHS, however, only records half the lines and is much closer to
QVGA quality.

-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 4:32:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

>
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Cha...

> which says:
> NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution

It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines".


> see also:
> http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm

It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240."


"...one needs to know Common Intermediate Format (CIF). CIF refers to
the number of squares of color (pixels) in columns and rows."
http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?A...
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 11:34:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
> VHS, however, only records half the lines and is much closer to
> QVGA quality.
>
> -Wolfgang

I was wondering if the QVGA claim related to a VHS-processed TV picture!

VHS records all the lines by the way (or so I believe, at least in the PAL
system) but does so at reduced horizontal luminance resolution. The
colour resolution is also reduced.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 12:48:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

callen@efn.org wrote:
> http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Cha...
>
>> which says:
>> NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution
>
> It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines".

I see no justification for that statement in that document. You can (on
UK TV) quite often see interlace flicker (unless you view with dimmed
lighting to reduce the eye's response speed), which says that information
at close to the limiting resolution is present. That would be 480 lines
(or so) vertically on NTSC or 575 lines on the European PAL standard.

>> see also:
>> http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm
>
> It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240."

It says:

"Note: vertical resolution is less than 525 or 625 lines per image because
some are used for blanking (synchronization). CIF is Common Intermediate
Format, noninterlaced, every pixel carries Luma and Chroma, this format is
less demanding because 1/4 of full size but it carries very accurate data.
Yes, NTSC isn't 30fps but 29.97 !
So we have Luma coded with 720x576 pixels (NTSC 720x485) and Chroma with
360x576 (NTSC 360x485) therefore every line carries meaningful information
and dealing with interlaced video makes sense (versus CIF). "



> "...one needs to know Common Intermediate Format (CIF). CIF refers to
> the number of squares of color (pixels) in columns and rows."
> http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailBuildings.asp?A...

This reference to CIF is not relevant here - it is a video-conferencing
format, not an analogue TV format:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/DISCOVER/CIF.html

Even analog TV is better than CIF video conferencing!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:23:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

callen@efn.org <callen@efn.org> wrote:
>>
> http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CC/365/li/material/notes/Chap3/Cha...

>> which says:
>> NTSC: 720 x 480 luminance resolution

> It says, "Ordinary TV -- ~320 lines".

And now you show me ho to compare these 320 to 420 (Laserdisc,
S-VHS on NTSC) to 485 lines (Maximum of the format) to the 240
lines QVGA has! You still remove 1/4 of the lines.

>> see also:
>> http://www.labdv.com/leon-lab/video/interlace_en.htm

> It says, "CIF resolution [NTSC] 320x240."

It also says "to make 30fps NTSC from 24fps FILM, the process used
is called 3:2 pull-down" which has exactly the same relevance as
your quote. CIF is not what we talk about.

However, you can also find: "digital resolution 640x480 [NTSC]",
which firmly supports my statement and debunks the "TV is QVGA"
claim.



-Wolfgang
Anonymous
January 31, 2005 3:32:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
> However, you can also find: "digital resolution 640x480 [NTSC]",
> which firmly supports my statement and debunks the "TV is QVGA"
> claim.
>
>
>
> -Wolfgang

Yes, the resolution is as you say - VGA - however, many of the recording
systems do not work at the full resolution of the TV system. Perhaps this
is confusing the original poster.

Cheers,
David
!