On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:46:07 GMT, Loren Amelang wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:53:20 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com
>(Neuman - Ruether) wrote:

>> but the PC100 stills at highest resolution (and the TRV30
>> samples from the Japanese site) show considerable color
>> noise - I prefer the image quality with the resolution set
>> at 640x480, though these are good only for tiny prints or
>> for web use.

(It would help those of us without 21" monitors if your
text width were kept narrower...;-)

>Thanks for the validation. I just went through trying to
>make that call, and in all the images I could find on the
>web the MiniDV "megapixel" still images were pretty much
>spoiled (for me) by noise. Even at standard video
>resolution, I've concluded that what appears to be greater
>sharpness in the Sony cameras over the Canons is not real
>information but the kind of illusion you create by cranking
>up a "sharpness" control or doing an unsharp mask on the
>captured image.

I think these are two different issues - the megapixel
stills do show considerable color noise, but the captures
made at 640x480 with these cameras don't, and look better
than when the larger images are downsized to 640x480.
Also, the motion-video does not show this color noise...
The video images of the megapixel Sony cameras do show
subtle effects of oversharpening, but the level of
sharpening used, while relatively high for Sony cameras,
is generally lower than what I've seen with other brands,
even the 3-chippers. The high resolution is real, as
evidenced by the good rendering of fine detail like
grass textures, distant tree lines, etc.

>As I understand it, there is a direct tradeoff between
>that "edginess" which makes you think an image has high
>resolution, and the excessive random noise texture in
>what should be smooth areas of the image.

Yes, this is true - and "stairstepping", moire
patterns, and "halos" are also exaggerated. This is
my objection to the GL-1 - the actual resolution is
not high, but the contrast and sharpening have been
pushed to the point that the picture is very
"busy"-looking with multiple highly-evident types
of artifacts. The Sony megapixel one-chip cameras
tend in this direction, too, to give a sharp-looking
picture - but it actually is sharp, while also showing
some of this artifacting.

>Even in the images
>of resolution test charts I see on the web, it is hard to
>tell if the sharp edges the Sonys sometimes produce below
>400 lines are meaningful. Seems to me that once the edges of
>the resolution test lines have crossed the first point wher
>they interfere destructively with the camera pixels, any
>sharp edges at apparently higher resolution points are just
>digital artifacts, and their effects on a real image are
>unpredictable.

Actually, the effects are all too predictable...;-)
With the megapixel Sony cameras, a frame-grab of
an individual frame from the motion-video looks
terrible (this kept me from buying one until recently),
but in "reality", video is a collection of 60 fields
a second, and this pile of images build a motion-image
of surprisingly high quality - though very contrasty
edges will show the ill effects of the effort to
present the sharpest-looking image consistent with
acceptable levels of negative artifacting. That level
is clearly higher than it is for the TRV900 and VX2000
(which are not without these effects, either), but for
the trade-off in lower size and weight, the picture of
the megapixel one-chipper Sonys is remarkably similar
to that of the TRV900, a very good "prosumer" 3-chipper.
Compared side-by-side, though, the megapixel motion
image shows more artifacting, with less open shadows,
and less detailed highlights than the TRV900 - though,
compared with a good non-megapixel one-chipper like
the TRV11, the megapixel picture shows a bit more
artifacting, a bit better sharpness, and, surprisingly,
better highlight detail (though the overall contrast is
similar or a bit higher).

>Any thoughts?

Too many....;-)