On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:51:21 GMT, nujuko@utu.REMOVE.fi (Nuutti Koskinen) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:58:27 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:

[...]
>>Now also included are some frame-grabs using the Canon
>>WD-58 WA lens converter - and some samples using the
>>still-photo feature
[...]

> I wonder why all the VX2000 still-photos I've seen look so
>much better (sharper, more accurate color) than video frame
>grabs from the same camera. How does the camera treat these
>differently? Now if I could get as good and accurate video
>as those stills, I'd be totally sold out. [...]

Well, so would I...! ;-)
Actually, if you frame-grab instead of using the
still-photo mode, they are the same. If you use the
still-photo mode, the camera optimizes the image
for stills (using a PS-mode that is useless for
shooting video...) - and also permits using a different
set of picture "custom controls". In addition, many of us
run the stills through a photo-editor as a matter of course
to optimize the results...
The VX-2000 motion-video picture is about as good as it
gets anywhere near its price - and it looks GREAT on a TV
(different characteristics from a computer monitor...).
Also, at 30fps (as with film at 24) the motion-video
combines information from several frames, giving a sharper
result than a single frame would show.