On 19/09/2003 nmonteith wrote:
>They certainly would not be down sampling the images on the fly.
Actually I beg to differ with you. If you read the spec sheets of the various models, and also read the tech reviews available, it becomes clear that the higher end models are indeed sampling video (not stills), at a greater resolultion than the DV standard using it to produce better video results. The stills ability of my sony video camera makes, as you say, little difference to the video, but the resolution captured and used for video, is certainly considerably more than that of the lower end models. Having played with several models the difference is evident, even without looking at the specs, though I could find them if you were interested.
Arh. Found the numbers:
PC120 Video Actual: 970K Pixels, RRP $4000 or so
TRV33 Video Actual: 690K Pixels, RRP $1500 or so
Basically, as I said, you get what you pay for. The lower end models sometimes have negative artifacts, (like pizelisation along contrasty lines, or colour bleeding). But I agree you need 3CCD for the best colour accuracy. |