Hi--

>>> 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...;-)

I gave up on Netscape 4 after way too many web pages just wouldn't load,
and braved NS6.01 - mistake! The browser part is an improvement, but the
NS6 newsreader is miserable.

As a sometimes web designer, I detest Netscape - it can't do SO many
basic
things well, and it therefore limits what I can do with simple tools.
YUCK! ;-)

I've been playing with Opera5, which includes
a tolerable newsreader that only has one glaring flaw I can't find a way
to limit posted line width.

We use Opera to check HTML, since it is intollerant of errors - but
it cannot do anything but the basics (I prefer MS IE - it works...,
though I like Eudora for email).

I've set all the settings that are supposed to
insert fixed wordwrap, but they don't, and I haven't had the time to dig
for a solution. So much for being drug kicking and screaming onto
Windows...

I manually hit the "Enter" key to limit line length - usually for
shorter lines than the poster, to differentiate original and response...


>>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.

The practical considerations of what I want video for eliminate the
larger,
more serious cameras. I've about settled on an Elura2 as my best
compromise, but the sample images I've seen seem a bit soft compared to
the
oversharp Sonys. I go back and forth over whether there really is more
useful detail information in the Sony images, but I think I prefer the
color rendition and smoothness of the Canon over the possible better
resolution of the Sonys. Megapixel stills were tempting, but I've
convinced
myself I'd never be satisfied with the results. And for the price of a
PC110 I could get the Elura2 and a half-decent still camera... The pair
probably wouldn't weigh much more than the 110 (or Canon's
PV130/Optura100).

I have another solution...;-)
Sony makes four lines of one-chippers, with two kinds of image
the PC110/TRV30, which tries to approximate the sharpness of
3-chippers (compromising some picture characteristics to do it),
and the PC9/TRV17, with a softer-looking, warmer, smoother-edged
picture. I have both, and like both - and the better low-light
ability of the latter (and color bias) better match the VX-2000
in multi-camera shoots. I use the PC100 when I want its "snap",
and its small size (the PC9 is much smaller, and maybe instead of
buying two TRV11s and a PC100 [used/demo - similar to the TRV17
and PC110/TRV20, but different from the TRV30]) Sears is now
carrying the PC9 and TRV17 - take a look at these...

And I keep hearing vague suspicions that "progressive shutter" is not
the
equal of a real progressive scan system. Since still capture of specific
frames out of long video sequences is the main justification for this
tool,
the Canon seems safer.

Do not shoot video in frame mode, unless it will be used for
little but web and sports work, or similar - it spoils motion-video
seen on regular TVs, and also reduces the frame resolution some
(and one would need all of that one could save...;-). Use a video
camera for interlaced video, a still camera for stills (a 35mm camera
with a fast motor and having scans made of selected frames will be FAR
better, unless you just don't care about image quality...)

>>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

Well, that is pretty convincing. I don't think I'd be unhappy with the
Elura images provided there aren't any oversharp comparison images right
beside them, but I know I'd be unhappy with the noise level of the
little
Sonys. Plus the Sony images remind me of 1960s Ektachrome, or so-called
"full spectrum" fluorescent lighting - the colors just aren't quite
solid.
I haven't been able to find any technical explanation of Canon's "RGB
Primary Color Filter", but I wonder if that is the difference?

Dunno. But I think you may be reading too much into this frame-grab
thing (as I did, in rejecting the PC100 for so long - it can
shoot wonderful video in appropriate light for it, and the 640x480
M-Stick stills are very good). Its frame-grabs with motion are not good,
but those of the TRV17/PC9 are poor (as are the MS stills), as probably
are the stills from the Canon. Shoot video, or stills - there is no
one small/light/cheap/do-all camcorder...

You mentioned B&H in another post. They are $70+ more on the Elura2s
than
the places on the web I've never heard of - but way below any of the
"bricks" stores in my 100 mile shopping circle. Do you recommend them,
or
are they just a fact of life for handy reference?
Most of the "unknowns" are to be avoided - the prices are not real, in
the end... Here is the Sony dealer list
http//www.sel.sony.com/cgi-bin/SEL/consumer/ss5/cgi/aid_list.pl

David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http//www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!