On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 22:41:12 GMT, "L" wrote:

>Hello John Beale, I was looking at your commends and extensive research you
>did comparing camcorders, but I find that there is not yes or no answer when
>it comes to which camera has the best sharpest picture...overall. I mean if
>a person with 20/20 vision were to see both videos taken with the camera
>which one would be the sharpest on any monitor. I do not really care how
>this was accomplished. I have been doing videos for a long time and can see
>the difference in quality more than a regular person.
>
>What I get from you helpful answer to me is that the G1-1 uses Electronic
>Edge Enhancement/high pass filter...and here is where it gets fuzzy..... so
>its image MAY appear sharper. So please tell me which is better more pixels
>from the TRV-900 or the enchancement of the GL-1. When you can answer this,
>than you have accomplished something.
>
>I do not mean to be rude at all, it is that I want bottom line answers on
>which camera is suppose, is, are... the best for picture resolution, since
>that is the what we all want.
>
>What I basically know about Sony and Canon product in respect to camcorder
>is that Sony color seem to be more saturated compared to the Canon (this I
>have witnessed).....Which is better? In my amateur knowledge it is the
>canon because I believe that color that is too saturated does not make for
>good film if one want to copy to fillm if there ever was a need to.
>
>I beleive we will never find the answer as to which is better Sony or Canon
>(in sharper imaging)

JB gave a good answer, actually...
(though his comment on the low-light smoothness
may possibly be based on the +12db gain limit of
the GL-1 vs. the +18 of the TRV-900 - and this
can be offset by using AE-A on the 900 to force
the aperture wide-open sooner, to keep the gain rise
lower longer as the light level goes down...).
Sharpness is made up of both actual resolution and
perception-affecting elements like contrast and
edge-effects. In general, the best-quality picture
(for sharpness) is one with minimal edge effects,
normal contrast, and high resolution. Video is a
low-resolution medium, so one accepts some "cheater"
elements, in some degree, but these, in excess,
produce lines around contrasty edges, and contrast
levels that make good tonal range (by definition)
impossible to represent. Of the two camcorders
mentioned, both look reasonably "sharp", but the
TRV-900 approaches the ideal somewhat better in
that its resolution is higher, its contrast and
edge-enhancement lower. Side benefits of lower
contrast are easier exposure determination, and
greater freedom from nasty DV picture artifacts
("flapping" and "stairstepping" of contrasty
edges in motion, mostly). Better yet in this is the
VX-2000 (which also, BTW, offers useable control
over edge-effect enhancement, cool/warm color
bias, saturation, and AE-bias - allowing considerable
picture-customization), which is not a lot more
expensive than the GL-1... The VX-2000 is considered
the sharpest under $5000 camera around - and the
VX-2000 low-light ability is also noticeably better
than the others (short the JVC500 - but that is a
completely different type of camera...), making it
a near ideal "budget" high-quality camcorder. The
audio of the VX-2000 has some quirks, but these
are not hard to deal with. For more, see:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
So, to answer your question: it is the Sony
VX-2000 that is the sharpest. ;-)