On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 04:53:26 GMT, John Beale
>Reginald
>: -On normal NTSC televisions, can you tell the difference between video
>: shot with a 680,000 CCD vs. a 1,000,000 CCD?
>I believe it would be very difficult to see in casual viewing, even if you
>had a true megapixel videocamera. There are none sold to consumers yet:
>those that claim megapixel and up are digital still/video cameras combined,
>and they only use a subset of the chip for video. This is often mentioned
>somewhere in the fine print in the manual. The MiniDV cameras (NTSC, in
>North America) actually record a video frame which is 720x480 pixels, and
>that's only 345,600 pixels total. (There are some subtleties with color,
>but I'll leave that alone for now.)
Hmmmmmmmm.....;-)
The TRV30/50-PC120, with its 1.5 megapixel CCD, does appear
to use nearly a megapixel for video purposes... (though
I think the original poster is asking about gross pixel
count ;-). The answer is, yes, you can see the difference
in the pictures from a 680,000-pixel CCD camcorder vs. a
"megapixel" CCD camera, at least within the Sony line (see
for frame-grab and verbal comparisons in three different lighting conditions the results, at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm).
The differences: the "megapixel" picture tends to have
greater resolution and a bit better color (in good light),
but also less low light range, and more annoying artifacting
with motion. I agree with your conclusion below, though,
and often recommend the TRV11/17/18-PC5/9 over the
"megapixel" models for their generally more pleasant
picture and lower price...
>: -I would like to have MPEG capability on the camera, but if the camera
>: does not have this capability, and can you download a clip to your
>: computer, is it easy to make an MPEG on your PC?
>It is certainly "possible" and depending what software you have and your
>level of computer experience, might be considered "easy". It's getting
>easier all the time as the software improves.
>: I am on the fence between a Sony TRV18 and a TRV25. I just would like
>: to know if difference in CCD is that big of a deal.
>I feel that a 680k pixel camera is more than adequate for typical home
>video. That's plenty of resolution for a typical TV screen, so beyond that
>you may find it more important to look at the low-light performance of the
>camera. The "megapixel" cameras trade off light sensitivity for more pixels
>(which for the most part, aren't even used in video mode!) This hurts when
>taking video indoors at night or other dim conditions. High-resolution
>dim and noisy video is a lot less pleasant to watch than slightly lower
>resolution, but brighter, cleaner and more colorful video.
The "megapixel" picture in low light tends to show
finer "grain", but loses color a tad sooner, and the
color is harder to correct to normal during editing
than with the lower pixel-count 1-CCD cameras (Sony).
I use both types, but find the picture from the
"bottom end" models quite pleasing, especially if a
polarizer is used outdoors (with the daylight white
balance preset) to increase color saturation a bit;
for best quality, I use the 3-CCD VX2000...
>Regardless of your camera, turning on more lights can improve the picture
>indoors at night. But realistically speaking, for almost all home video
>users, you are grabbing shots while doing and thinking about other things
>and cannot realistically change the lighting. You end up just with whatever
>light is there, and whatever your camera can do with it.
A good observation...;-)