On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:38:23 GMT, Tio wrote:
[no valid return address...]

>Hi David,
>
>Those links you gave were very informative! The information culled leaves
>me to say one thing... Ouch!! You have opened my eyes to the fact that I
>will not be able to produce the quality of still images I was hoping to
>from a camcorder. Since I am not ready to purchase a production quality
>video camera to garner acceptable stills I will probably be quite
>satisfied with one of the TRV's or PC's used just for video. The digital
>still camera was on my near future list anyhow so it's not an unexpected
>addition.

I used to "rant-'n'-rail" against the still option even
being offered on video cameras, but for web purposes, I
have found it a useful feature (with the best
camcorders...).

>If I may cull from your experience a bit more... In your opinion what
>should one concentrate on and look for in a camcorder in respect to
>generating quality results (i.e. actual pixel resolution, non-digital
>zoom value, etc.).

The specs on these will tell you little about the "look"
of the picture, and the "sound" of the audio...
Generally, ignore the specs, since they don't cover what
really counts. All camcorders provide at least the VERY
wide (by still standards) 10:1 zoom range (digital zoom
is useless); DIS/EIS (stabilization) *can* be as good
overall as OIS (or far worse), and stabilizers do vary in
how effective they are and how good/bad they look in action
regardless of type; the panel finders are close to useless
outdoors (so getting excited about res/size of these is
useless - even the res of regular finders surprisingly
doesn't appear to be very important to focus ability);
lux ratings are useless across lines (but can be useful
within a line); CCD pixel-count predicts little about
image quality (without some experience with them within
a camcorder line...); etc. What I look for in a camcorder
picture is good image sharpness (especially to the corners
with the lens wide-open), with minimal negative artifacting
(these are somewhat-competing attributes - and the
artifacting can take the form of "sawtooth" edges on
contrasty edges ["stair-stepping"], dark or light "halos"
on contrasty edges [from "oversharpening"], "buzzy"
rendering of fine detail ["mosquito effect"], etc.); good,
natural-looking color with little "blooming" (loss of
tonal-variation [and detail] within a strong color area
(and sometimes color "spill" at the edges, if bad enough),
good saturation, and good neutrality; good tonality (open
shadows with good detail, and highlights that do not
easily "burn out" to white); good "smoothness" (lack of
"grainy" look, and lack of "banding" [two competing
attributes]); good low-light reach (good picture quality
in low light levels commonly encountered); low linear
distortion, flare, ghosting, and focus-shift-with-zooming
in the lens; high image brilliance (related to contrast,
but different - it is having good clean blacks and whites
regardless of the size of the range of tones recorded in
between black and white); probably other things I haven't
thought of this morning...;-)
For audio, I look for wide-range frequency response;
smoothness and "levelness" over that FR range (less
response range with better smoothness/neutrality
[freedom from peaks-valleys-roughness in the response]
is preferable to the reverse [this is often called
"low coloration" in the sound - and, yes, sound does have
"color"...;-]); appropriate sound level; minimal noise
(from hiss, camcorder handling, or motor whine); relative
freedom from wind-noise problems; minimal artifacting
("pumping" of background noise levels, "crashing" of
levels from loud sounds) from auto gain control ("AGC")
circuits; good compatibility with a variety of external
mics likely to be used; more that I haven't thought of
this morning...
Little of the above is indicated in any of the specs
published by the camcorder manufacturers...

>Also, which digital format would you suggest?

??? All the "consumer" D8/Mini-DV/DVCam camcorders
use essentially the same format. Mini-DV offers
the most range of selectiion of gear by price and
features, but there are good reasons for using the
others... If I had a collection of Hi-8 tapes,
I would own a D8 (in addition to whatever else I
wanted), otherwise......;-)

>I promise this is the last time I will ask for your attention ;) You
>have been very helpful in adding an unbiased opinion to my information
>gathering.

Thanks for the comments - but answers beget more
questions, which is a good thing...;-)