As a bit of background to what I wrote above, and below:
I was a bit surprised by seeing how good a Sony TR700
Hi-8 one-chipper looked even when compared with a TRV-900
Mini-DV 3-chipper (the TRV-900 was better, but not by as
much as with comparing it with my A1-Digital...). If I had
known the Sony Hi-8 picture was that good back when I had
the Canon L1 (and later, the A1-Digital), I would have
switched to Sony back then instead of later! ;-) I don't
have frame-grabs to show, but the TR700 vs. the TRV-900
showed nearly as good sharpness and color, but a smoother
looking picture (in moderate light-level daytime interiors).
As for VHS, I edited a publicity video for a friend, using
TRV-900 footage (night stage lighting, with excellent video
quality) and VHS footage shot with really high-end gear
and dumped directly off the mixer to VHS during a daytime
tent event. The two mixed together well enough, with
even small type and fine graphics detail holding well off
the VHS, though the Mini-DV footage was better, and the
VHS material was about as good as it gets under any
circumstances (and that VHS would look much better than
what average-level VHS gear would produce). I would expect
about the same for 8mm (similar to VHS) and SVHS (similar
to Hi-8).

On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:47:26 GMT, "Jesse Greenawalt" wrote:
>Are there any good frame grabs on the net to show what GOOD S-VHS/Hi8 look
>like? My D8 pretty much smokes the video8 & VHS of my friends that I've
>seen, but those were inexpensive 1 chippers themselves. I assume the good
>ones you mention were 3 chip models...

>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3a7100d4.3448987@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:18:07 -0800, Steve Mobia
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Is it just my camera (Sony P-100) or does all consumer digital video
>> >look fuzzy and full of stepstep like distortions? When take pictures of
>> >anything with a solid line or edge, I get diagonal break up and
>> >strobing. I thought
>> >that DV was superior to Hi-8 but this picture looks worse than VHS!
>> >
>> >Steve
>>
>> We have corresponded about this, and without having tried
>> one, and with only having seen frame-grabs (not still-photo
>> images) from megapixel one-chippers, it appears that the
>> video image quality of these has been badly compromised to
>> improve the virtually-useless still-photo capability. Gross
>> stairstepping in megapixel one-chip video cameras appears
>> to make their video output pretty unacceptable... I guess
>> in the DV image-quality hierarchy, one would place at the
>> bottom end both D8 (for its generally low resolution) and
>> megapixel-chip DV (for its excessive stairstepping); next
>> up would be the better standard-pixel-count one-chip
>> Mini-DV camcorders; next up would be the low-end 3-chip
>> Mini-DV camcorders; above that would be the better 3-chip
>> Mini-DV and low-end DVCam camcorders; followed by the
>> REALLY 'spensive and huge stuff...;-) So-so image-quality
>> level Hi-8 fits somewhere around the bottom end of the DV
>> range, with the best Hi-8 fitting somewhere around the
>> mid-level of 3-chip Mini-DV. VHS is off the bottom end
>> of this scale, except for the very best of it...
>> If you move from a good VHS camcorder, you will need to go
>> to one of the better one-chip Mini-DVs to see a very
>> noticeable improvement in image quality, and spend about
>> $12-1500. If you move from a good Hi-8 (Sony TR-700 or
>> TR-101 or better), you will need to spend about $2500 in
>> Mini-DV to improve significantly on the image quality.
>> The mfgrs. have sold many on the "DV is better" idea,
>> but it is not always true - though there is still the DV
>> generation loss (or lack thereof...) advantage, which
>> is significant, even if the image-quality isn't always
>> better...