"lathem" <lathem@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:SeqVb.16085$jH6.8793@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> > The 33's higher resolution is relevant only to still imaging, which > is a

> useless feature in a video camera.

> I guess I was mistaken. I was under the impression that the 33 had a better

> CCD. I thought the 22 had 380k pixels and the 33 had 680k pixels. I was

> under the impression that this translated to "truer" colors, etc. even with

> video. As I said, I could care less about the still camera capabilities.

"PTRAVEL" has this wrong - the higher pixel count of the TRV33

*does* contribute towards a motion-video picture with a bit better

color and resolution compared with the TRV22, but the higher

pixel count also further limits the low-light range, a tough trade-off,

alas, if you shoot much video under both low and high illumination

conditions (for this, only a good 3-CCD model provides a solution...;-).

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com