On 22 Oct 2001 17:35:19 -0700, michael@sbss.com.au (Michael Boniwell) wrote:

>I'm new to digital video. Have been an avid 35mm SLR stills
>photographer for some years though. Now looking at buying a mini DV
>camcorder. Priorities are price, movie image quality, and size in that
>order. I don't really need it to do digital stills since I cannot
>imagine giving up the 35mm SLR for poorer quality digital stills.
>However, I see quality of the movie image as very important and thus
>far have been disappointed with noticeable "stair-stepping" or
>pixelisation around edges and near horizontal lines in the models I've
>managed to experiment with in retail shops. I also see size as
>important since I do a lot of travel involving rock climbing & hiking,
>and would like a small camcorder for these events, as well as the
>usual family things and overseas touristy things.
>
>After reading many reviews on the net (including camcorderinfo.com),
>I've narrowed my search to the Sony TRV17 due mainly to price ($2150
>AUD) and positive feedback. However, I'm also comparing this model to
>the Sony TRV30 ($2995 AUD), which I might be able to scarp together
>enough funds for if I knew the 1.5 mega pixels would eliminate the
>stair-stepping problem. Can anyone confirm this? I cannot afford a 3
>CCD camera. If the TRV30 cannot solve this issue there seems little
>point in spending the extra dollars just for better digital stills
>that are still going to be poor compared to 35mm film.
>
>I'm also comparing the Sony TRV17 to the Sony PC9 ($2850 AUD), which
>has the ultra compact design. This would be very useful for me. It may
>even be small enough to consider taking it up a climb and would
>certainly be great for hiking and overseas travel. However this
>feature does not seem worth the extra dollars. Is there something else
>about the PC9 that warrants the jump in price from the TRV17? It seems
>to have the same specs other than physical size.
[...]
>Getting back to the stair-stepping issue in general. Is the 800,000
>pixels of the TRV17/PC9 about as good a quality movie image as can be
>expected for a single CCD camera? I guess what I'm asking is whether
>it's worth trying to go for a greater resolution mega pixel camera, or
>will this really have no effect on the quality of the movie image?
>
>If I had to choose now I'd get the TRV17 mainly due to price and a
>general feeling of associating Sony with quality (good marketing?).
>However I intend to research this more, so any advice you can offer
>would be greatly appreciated.

I have the PC9 and have had the TRV11 - both have the same
image quality as the TRV17. I also have the PC100 (similar
image quality to the PC110 and TRV20). I'm trying to buy a
TRV30 (similar image quality to the PC120). In the case of
the first two, the images are noticeably different. The PC9
image is neutral-warm, normal-high in contrast, moderately
sharp, and reasonably free of excessive negative picture
artifacts (a good "compromise" image, very pleasant, but
not ideal for shooting fine detail and textures); the PC100
image is noticeably sharper (about as sharp as the 3-chip
TRV900), neutral-cool, a bit high in contrast (highlights
burn out easily), and high in negative picture artifacts
(some subjects look quite bad, some quite good shot
with this camera - it trades universality and pleasantness for
excellent sharpness for a one-chipper); the TRV30 images
I've seen look quite promising, and (I'm speculating...)
it may be that the 14-bit DSP it uses may improve the
negative artifacting situation, while retaining first-rate
sharpness (I will know only when I try one...). The TRV900
image, BTW, has excellent color (saturation and balance,
though a tad weak in green...), very good sharpness,
normal contrast (with better handling of shadows and
highlights compared with one-chippers), and relatively
minor negative artifacting. I would also consider this
one, since it is compact for a 3-chipper, still very good,
and (in the US) not much more expensive than the TRV30
(but if the TRV30 is really good......;-). On a budget,
I would consider the TRV17 (or the earlier TRV11).