The differences on-screen, of the same material, shot
with both types of cameras can be quite obvious, but
the choice is between greater resolution with less
low light range and more annoying picture artifacting
vs. slightly better low-light range and better smoothness
with motion, with lower sharpness and coarser "gain
grain"... No easy answer for "better", but I agree with
your comment, "I think even the TRV18 would provide
a nice image, while giving better low light performance".

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:53:29 GMT, Aaron wrote:
>
>So the decision might come down to:
>
>TRV18 - non-megapixel, better low light shooting,
>TRV25 - mega-pixel, worse low light shooting.
>
>I can't see that the mega-pixel CCD will make a HUGE difference. If you
>sit an analyze them side-by-side, maybe, but for the casual user who
>won't sit and strain over the video, I think even the TRV18 would provie
>a nice imagie, while giving better low light performance.
>
>Man, the decision continues. I wish the TRV18 had the 3.5" screen.

>Neuman - Ruether wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:26:49 -0500, "K & S Brackett"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hmmm. That seems right but then again, how can it
>> >be the higher (and supposedly better) model with
>> >a smaller CCD. I notice too that the lux rating
>> >is 7 for the TRV25/27 whereas the TRV17/18 has a
>> >better lux rating of 5. Curiouser and curiouser
>> >Christopher Robin....

>> The same is true for the TRV17/PC5 vs. the megapixel
>> TRV30/PC115/PC120/PC110/PC100. Go to:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
>> to see what some of the differences are. In short:
>> the smaller chip size and higher pixel count will
>> result in worse low light ability, but with the
>> extra pixels, greater image sharpness for both
>> video and stills - but not without some image
>> quality disadvantages (in addition to the lower
>> sensitivity) with this...