On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:03:02 -0500, "M Weiss" wrote:

>>What's happening in the DV cameras is that they have a lot more pixels,
>and,
>>because the camera makers make the cameras very small, the CCD itself is
>>also smaller. Smaller CCD, more pixels - that means much smaller pixels.
>>
>>Now we have the problem that smaller electronic circuits have more thermal
>>noise. Result: you need more light to get a relatively noise-free signal.
>>
>>That's it, folks.

>I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. I was irked by the prevelance
>of 1/4" CCDs in most DV camcorders, and being a new (and very dissatisfied)
>ZR10 owner, I'm hugely let-down by the real world performance of the unit,
>as compared with the specs which really built up my expectations. The kicker
>that really soured me on the ZR10 was the fact that my 3 yr old RCA VHS
>camcorder outputs a far superior picture, when compared side by side on a
>Sony PVM 1261Q broadcast monitor. The ZR10 image looked "manipulated" and
>artificial, while the el-cheapo RCA unit delivered a more lifelike, almost
>broadcast-quality image by comparison. This, despite the S-video connection
>advantage for the ZR10 (the RCA is composite).
>
>This is almost enough to convince me to shop for a good used professional
>camcorder of the betacam or Hi-8 format.

You are comparing a low-end Mini-DV camcorder with a single
very small chip with the *camera* output of an inferior camera
in conditions which will favor the inferior camera...
Try recording both on tape, and compare the *tape* output of
footage shot in bright light. If this doesn't convince you,
make a copy of both tapes (to same tape type, or both to
VHS) and view that...;-) Then try a top-end 3-chip Mini-DV
camcorder, like the VX-2000, VX-1000 TRV-900 and JVC DV500,
if you want to be spoiled by seeing a good picture from a
Mini-DV camcorder, even under difficult lighting conditions.