On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:42:49 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2002 20:57:17 GMT, rickron51@aol.com (Rickron51)
>wrote:

>>Is there anything in this newer camera that will give me more resolution or
>>detail with video. I'm not interested in stills?

>You can find these compared, with frame grabs in
>three different lighting conditions (and with the
>PC120 as the similar-imaging TRV30), at:
>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
>BTW, I disagree with RM's conclusions since the CCDs
>(and processing) are different on these two cameras
>(the lenses are the same) - the images from the
>two are noticeably different, with the PC100 being
>a tad less sharp, but with the "plus" of therefore
>having a bit less of the annoying digital artifacting
>of the TRV30/PC120/PC115. BTW, the PC9/TRV17 is less
>sharp yet, and with noticeably less artifacting,
>but it is a bit "soft"-looking in comparison (a
>good compromise for some, though...). Also BTW,
>the low-use, thoroughly tested PC100 used in the
>comparisons is available (I will keep the
>softer/smoother PC9 and sharper/rougher TRV30
>"on either side" of the PC100 - though for one
>camera of these three types, the PC100 is a good
>"in between" compromise...).

Rereading MR's post, I find we do not disagree - but
the different imaging devices of the two cameras do
produce differing video image characteristics,
particularly with motion-video. When nothing moves
within the frame, digital artifacting effects tend
to be suppressed, which is why video frame-grabs
(at least those that don't show interlacing effects)
and stills often look better than the motion-video
footage, unlike with film where the individual frames
look grainier and less sharp than when combined
with many others in motion (assuming the frames are
similar, with no fast motion within the clip...;-).