On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:51:09 GMT, "Gsabo" wrote:

>I don't understand your decision. I just looked at the pic comparisons of
>the trv30 vs. the sharp vl-mx1 and the canon dm-fv1. Both the canon and the
>sharp show greater detail (resolution) and also show more of the image and
>colors for the low light shot.(see yarn examples) So why are you so high on
>the Sony?
>
>Here is the exact series I am referring to:
>http://www8.big.or.jp/%7Ea_fuyu/0103hikaku.html

??????????
Compare again the first row of frame-grabs...
Sony TRV30: sharp, clean edges on both large and small
items, fine storey-lines showing on the side of the
grey building under Coca-Cola sign, crisp writing
on signs, clean-neutral grey-tones, good verticals
in bridge railing, crisp bare tree branches, low "grain"
in sky.
Canon/Sharp: "oversharpened" bright edges showing,
indistinct edges (worse on Canon than Sharp) everywhere,
fine storey-lines fuzzy, writing on signs fuzzy (even
the largest (Canon worse than Sharp), acceptable
neutrality on grey tones on both, acceptable vertical
lines on both (better on Sharp), Canon trees and bridge
verticals are poorly rendered, more "grain" in sky.
I would consider the Sharp good, but not the Canon,
and the Sony image is easily superior to either...
In the low-light samples, the Canon and Sharp do
show greater low-light reach, but both have noticeably
more color noise showing than the Sony, but in an editor
it should be possible to lighten and adjust the Sony
image to more closely approximate either of the others
(I just tried this with a photo editor, and the
result was not as good as the Canon image, but was
close (contrast/brightness/saturation adjustment).
The Canon does have, by a bit, the best low-light
reach of these three.
Overall, I would also take the Sony TRV30 - but if
the price is close to the TRV900 3-chip Sony, as
it appears it will be, then there is no contest
here...;-)