On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:23:03 +0000, Paul wrote:
>Michael Boniwell wrote (Sun, 9 Dec 2001):
>

>>The stills ability of camcorders will not be even close to 35mm film or
>>even a cheap digital stills camera.

>A number of you have written this, but what do you mean by a cheap
>digital stills camera? Are you talking 640x480 fixed focus?
>Or is a 1 megapixel camcorder going to be worse than a 1 megapixel still
>camera?

Due to excessive color noise in the megapixel still images
from Mini-DV camcorders, the best-quality output is limited
to 640x480 (which any fairly inexpensive still digital
camera will surpass); at the 1.5 megapixel level, the stills
from the video camera will be inferior to those of a digital
still camera, even one of the same relatively low pixel
count...

>If that is the case then I am going to be somewhat disappointed in my
>search for a megapix camcorder that does 'reasonable' [by my definition]
>stills.

Figure acceptable results around 4"x5". The TRV30/PC120 1.5
megapixel camcorder stills are not TOO horrible at 8"x10",
but are better from any far cheaper 1.2-2megapixel still
camera...

>I know to some extent that camcorders use 'smoke & mirrors' [sometimes
>literally] to boost the pixel count, but I was kinda hoping that the ilk
>of the JVC GR DV1800 or the Panasonic NV MX8 would spawn 'reasonable'
>[by my definition] stills.

Depends on how low your standards are...

>My definition of 'reasonable'? Rather rough and ready I'm afraid, I'm
>used to my tiddly 110 film camera [grainy at 5'x3'] and having looked at
>800x600 blown up to A4 thinking "yeah, that's OK [from a distance]".
>
Well, in that case......;-)

>Are there sites out there where I may view/download some stills taken
>using various camcorders [esp. 0.8Mp or greater ones]?

There are 640x480s from the VX2000 at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
and from the PC100 and TRV30 at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/changing.html