On 21 Aug 2001 05:37:26 -0700, jc_tardiff@yahoo.com (Jil Tardiff) wrote:

>Big debate going on in my household. We are currently deciding
>between the Sony PC9 and Sony PC110/TRV30 . The price difference is
>about $300. The last remaining "sticking point" is the *video*
>resolution.
>
>1. Will either the PC110 or the TRV30 take better video than the PC9?
>I think that the PC110 and TRV30 actually have different CCDs as well.

Yes, and different from each other (the new PC120 should be
more similar to the TRV30...). As for "better" video, that
is subjective. I have both the PC9 (and the similar-imaging
TRV11 [which is also similar to the newer TRV17]), and the
PC100 (similar imaging to the PC110 and TRV20). The PC100
is sharper than the PC9, but shows more artifacting, has
a colder image color balance, and it is noticeably larger
and heavier - and ultimate low-light "reach" is slightly less. I like both.

>2. If the video resolution is indeed higher in the more expensive pair
>does this translate to larger .avi files when I transfer them to my
>computer?

No - the digital format is fixed, but within it various
trade-offs are possible before the signal is put to tape.

>I am an avid still photographer (35 mm and digital) and I know that
>(obviously) my higher-res digicam shots are larger. Does the same hold
>true for video?

No. NTSC is 720x480 pixels whether the camcorder is the
worst low-end D8, or top-end shoulder-mount DVCam - but
the image quality can vary considerably within that resolution...

>The final destination for many of these videos will be CD (and
>eventually DVD), in my analog experience up until now I have always
>tried to capture at the highest resolution posible to provide the most
>information for the final product. Does this hold true for the above
>situation?

Yes - the highest-quality source will give slightly
better results compared with starting with a low-quality
source, even though the quality level of the final
medium is low (VHS, CD, etc.).

>I have no problem spending the extra money (my husband is less sure
>;-)), but I want to make sure that it is money well spent.

Consider a step up from all the above, for very little
extra money, then... The 3-chip TRV900 has better color,
greater low-light range, lower contrast (with less blocking
of highlights and shadows - you can see detail in a greater
range of tone values in the subject), and more control over
exposure and sound, for around $1600... (It, and others,
are reviewed at:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm )

>I am going to go physically heft the camcorders in question tomorrow.

Have fun!