Without doing side-by-side tests, it is hard to say what
is going on... It is likely that the smaller-pixel TRV30 has at
least a bit less low-light "reach" before running into
excess-gain negative effects (which can cause the color to
go toward neutral as color disappears...), so the VERY
specific light level must be specified... Also, most
camcorders have a color bias that is worst (and often in
a different direction from the bright light bias) in low
light. Adding light helps, as does biasing the color in a
better direction with manual white balancing, etc. There is
more: the megapixel image is not only sharper, but "richer"
in artifacting like pronounced "stairstepping", moire
paterning, "mosquito" effects - and the contrast is often
quite high (too high for many types of subject material).
The bottom line is: the TRV30 (and similar) cameras
produces an image that is in some ways superior to that
of the PC9 (and similar), but in some ways it is also
inferior - choosing between them (or a good 3-chipper,
with fewer picture negative aspects) is not "straight-
forward", with one or another clearly superior in most
respects... In the Sony consumer Mini-DV line,
there are maybe four different-looking "pictures": the
PC9 (and TRV11/17/PC5), the TRV30 (and TRV20/PC100/PC110/
PC120), the TRV900 (and PD100), and the VX-2000 (and
PD150/DSR-250). What pleases/bugs you + whatever other
characteristics are important to you (size/weight/price/
sound-quality/handling-characteristics/body-color/
whatever...) determine the best choice for particular
uses/people... (I own at least one camcorder in each group,
thereby avoiding difficult purchasing decisions...;-).

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:35:08 -0700, "Vladimir Grebenik" wrote:
>
>But the indoors footage taken by TRV30 is much better than PC9, isn't it?
>Maybe it's resolution, maybe bigger lens, but the TRV-30 picture seemed
>clearer, crisper (as David wrote), but also more natural nad pleasant,
>whereas PC9 picture was a bit yellowish.
>
>Could it be that getting an external light on PC9 would help this problem
>and it would be as good as TRV30? (SInce the shoe is cold, the light needs
>to have a battery?)
>
>Thanks,
> Vladimir

>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3ba61bd6.15415514@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On 17 Sep 2001 13:16:14 GMT, xtx99@aol.com (Xtx99) wrote:
>>
>> >Could anyone tell me if I can expect similar image qualities between the
>TRV30
>> >and the PC9 based on the CCD size? I know the CCD of the TRV30 is 1/4"
>1550k
>> >and the PC9 is only 1/4" 680k. Does this make a big difference in image
>> >quality results?
>>
>> Yes - for both stills and motion-video.
>> The PC9 has a very pleasant, acceptably
>> sharp image with good color and color
>> balance for motion-video; the TRV30 (and
>> similar) compromise motion-video
>> characteristics somewhat (and ultimate
>> low-light reach) to better the image
>> sharpness - there are trade-offs, making
>> one not necessarily better than the other,
>> but different... For stills, the PC9 is
>> close to unacceptable, but the megapixel
>> cameras make good 640x480 images for
>> screen (not print) use - the larger images
>> they are capable of making (which would
>> appear to make them suitable for paper
>> prints) are actually lower in quality...
>> DR ("N-R")