I'm not sure...
Sometimes it appears the effect is slightly less in the PC100 (PC110, TRV20), but I'm uncertain about that.
It is noticeably less in the PC9 (TRV11, TRV17), than in
the megapixel camcorders, but so is the picture sharpness.
For subject types that don't show these annoying busy
effects, the megapixel images can look wonderful (except
for blown-out highlights), and the PC9 looks relatively
somewhat soft and dull, but for subject types that
show these bad effects, the PC9 image looks better...
Maybe it is time to sell these one-chippers and go back
to using my three-chippers - but the little ones are
SO handy...!;-)

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 23:03:33 GMT, xyz@hotmail.com (xyz) wrote:

>One reason why I did not opt for the TRV30. I think the TRV20
>produced similar effects (from what I read on your site) but would
>imagine (perhaps wrongly) to a lesser extent because of its lower
>pixel count.

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:53:48 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>
>>These, and the representatives of the other three Sony
>>mini-DV imaging types are compared at:
>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
>>They are quite different, and while I like the high
>>sharpness and very good color of the TRV30, the
>>"buzzy" look with motion bugs me (bare-tree shots,
>>for instance, look TERRIBLE!). The PC9 image is
>>noticeably less sharp, and the color isn't quite
>>as good, but the image looks better with motion
>>than it does with the TRV30 (and PC100).