On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:25:53 GMT, "Gsabo"
>From what I can see in the first series of pics Sony vs. canon, the sony pic
>is closer (notice the 2 additional building missing from the sony pic on
>left side, and notice the right edge is at the large screen ) On the Canon
>pic there are 2 additional buildings on the left side and one on the right
>of the photo. This may explain why you feel the sony is sharper, but it
>appears to me that the sony is just zoomed in farther.
Actually, more of the Canon CCD area is used for video
than with the Sony, resulting, effectively (everything else being
equal), in a narrower angle of view for the Sony (as if
"zoomed-in" a bit...). In comparing identical details shot
with both cameras, this would give the advantage to the
Sony, all else being equal, as you point out. But on a sharp
monitor it is obvious that the level of detail in the Sony
is simply much higher, not the small percentage the
difference in effective magnification would account for.
Look at simple edges - the ones without scale, like along
sky-building intersections. These are cleaner with the Sony,
both for sharpness, and for lack of oversharpening
artifacts. Compare also any sign, using a small one for the
Sony, if you want, with a larger one for the Canon. The
Sony rendition is crisper. Look also at textures and areas
of fine detail... Hunt up the resolution-chart frame-grabs
for these two cameras (same site). Here the magnifications
are equalized, and the differences are quite clear...
>I think that for an "apples to apples" or "yarn to yarn" under controlled
>lighting that the 2 Yarn examples speak volumes for both the sharp and the
>canon.
>On the last two yarn pics.....there is much more detail of the full light
>yarn in both the sharp and canon pics than in the sony, and when you look
>at the low light examples, well it isn't even close. Now consider that the
>canon is the(discontinued) old model FV1= Ultura @ $700, and that the newer
>FV2= Oputra PI @ $900, and then compare that to sony's latest TRV30 @
>$1400.00, well something is just not right.
I hesitate to use test subjects that are unknown, but the
yarn is not bad. One can reasonably assume that the
background and base color is neutral grey, and there is
enough else there to make some conclusions. In these, the
background appears fairly neutral with all (slightly yellow
with the Canon, slightly red with the Sharp, slightly green
with the Sony), with the contrast being highest with the
Canon (this can make things look sharper than they are) and
about the same with the other two (with the Sony exposure
lighter). Noise looks worst (very slightly) for the Canon,
best (very slightly) for the Sony. Edge effects are quite
obvious with the Canon (look at the table/background
intersection on the left, under the green yarn). In terms
of *actual* detail, I see little difference, with the slight
edge for the Sony, discounting contrast effects (which,
given the greater brightness of the Canon in the lower-light
samples, says good things about it - I was surprised by
this...). As for the yarn colors, who knows what they
really were (all look good - but I prefer exterior scenes
for judging color, since sky-blue, concrete-grey, etc. are
very familiar colors). In doing similar testing (see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm), I
found that if exterior scenes were not shot under identical
lighting conditions with the various camcorders, the appearance
of sharpness could be skewed toward the ones shot under
more contrasty lighting conditions... The frame-grabs
on: http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html are obviously
shot at different times (which can skew the results), but
there are enough different samples, and characteristics that
survive varying lighting, that the frame-grabs are still
useful. In a video editor, contrast/brightness/saturation
changes are easily made, so I tend to discount these
differences, when possible...
>I have been trying to evaluate diff. camcorders and before I got into this I
>believed that the sony was the best and I just needed/wanted to confirm my
>feelings. However, given serious and unbiased evaluation of what my
>eye's see and not what the specifications say or what the hype is all about,
Bravo! I prefer your approach to the one of believing the
superior advertising of any particular manufacturer!
>it is now clear to me that sony is way over rated for the money. Just my
>opinion. This link to the japan site was a real eye opener.
But there is a bit of a "learning curve" in evaluating frame
grabs ("warmer" images look "better"; higher-contrast images
look "better"; high edge-effect images look "better"; higher
color saturation looks "better") - until you know better,
with experience. And, frame-grabs do not tell the whole
story - in motion-video, cameras that look quite similar in
frame-grabs can look quite different when effects are in
motion...
>Too bad
>someone does not do that type of evual here in the states and with all the
>current models. Bet it would put a hurt'n on some previously "superior"
>manufacturers.
I did, for a few one-chippers, and most of the 3-chippers,
in Mini-DV - and I got quite a bit of "flack" for my
comments on the Canon entries, especially the GL--1...;-)
People want to believe things, regardless of reality...;-)
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3b375b1b.7403373@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:51:09 GMT, "Gsabo"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand your decision. I just looked at the pic comparisons
>of
>> >the trv30 vs. the sharp vl-mx1 and the canon dm-fv1. Both the canon and
>the
>> >sharp show greater detail (resolution) and also show more of the image
>and
>> >colors for the low light shot.(see yarn examples) So why are you so high
>on
>> >the Sony?
>> >
>> >Here is the exact series I am referring to:
>> >http://www8.big.or.jp/%7Ea_fuyu/0103hikaku.html
>>
>> ??????????
>> Compare again the first row of frame-grabs...
>> Sony TRV30: sharp, clean edges on both large and small
>> items, fine storey-lines showing on the side of the
>> grey building under Coca-Cola sign, crisp writing
>> on signs, clean-neutral grey-tones, good verticals
>> in bridge railing, crisp bare tree branches, low "grain"
>> in sky.
>> Canon/Sharp: "oversharpened" bright edges showing,
>> indistinct edges (worse on Canon than Sharp) everywhere,
>> fine storey-lines fuzzy, writing on signs fuzzy (even
>> the largest (Canon worse than Sharp), acceptable
>> neutrality on grey tones on both, acceptable vertical
>> lines on both (better on Sharp), Canon trees and bridge
>> verticals are poorly rendered, more "grain" in sky.
>> I would consider the Sharp good, but not the Canon,
>> and the Sony image is easily superior to either...
>> In the low-light samples, the Canon and Sharp do
>> show greater low-light reach, but both have noticeably
>> more color noise showing than the Sony, but in an editor
>> it should be possible to lighten and adjust the Sony
>> image to more closely approximate either of the others
>> (I just tried this with a photo editor, and the
>> result was not as good as the Canon image, but was
>> close (contrast/brightness/saturation adjustment).
>> The Canon does have, by a bit, the best low-light
>> reach of these three.
>> Overall, I would also take the Sony TRV30 - but if
>> the price is close to the TRV900 3-chip Sony, as
>> it appears it will be, then there is no contest
>> here...;-)
>>
>> David Ruether