On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:09:26 -0500, "Tien Dao" <tien.dao@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"Paul Tauger" <ptaugerspamtrap@cox.net> wrote in message

>news:b2pt2s$1fiu88$1@ID-101118.news.dfncis.de...

>> What started this thread was the following inquiry:

>>

>> "I am looking for a high end digital camcorder with still image

>> resolution in the 3.3 to 4 meg level. Does such a beast exist yet?"

>>

>> As I've said, there is no such thing as a high-end digital camcorder with

>> multi-mega-pixel still imaging capability. High-end camcorders have

>large,

>> low-pixel density CCDs. Low-end camcordershave small, high-pixel density

>.

>> . . and poor video imaging capability.

>Ahh, I think we have been talking with differing emphasis and misunderstand

>our definitions:

>

>I am looking for a "high end" (digital camcorder with still image resolution

>in the 3.3 to 4 meg level.) vs

>I am looking for a "high end" (digital camcorder) with still image

>resolution in the 3.3 to 4 meg level.

As I pointed out earlier, even those camcorders that provide

above-640x480 (NTSC) resolution do it poorly, and still

images from 1.5 megapixel camcorders are noisy (looks like

big grain) when shot above 640x480. The requirements for

still-camera and motion-video camcorder CCDs are different,

and for same pixel count CCDs for each, the stills camera

images will look much better. In other words, it is **VERY**

unlikely in the immediate future that ANY camcorder of ANY

pixel-count will equal the results from your Canon digital

still camera. HDTV camcorders *may* change this, but I

doubt it... The stills capability of camcorders is limited

(not only by pixel count...) to web use, or low-quality

paper prints, unfortunately.