I often film soccer games on large (high school) fields. I find that I
need to zoom out pretty far to get the action the way I want it. My
Sony Mini-DV camcorder is pretty good, but as I zoom out I lose the
numbers on the players' jerseys, etc.

A lot of expensive camcorders are hyped according to their analog and
digital zoom, etc., but I am not sure about their video quality when
zoomed out. In particular, I am wondering about the Sony DCR-VX2100
3CCD Mini-DV camcorder. This is a $2000 piece of equipment. My
question is: How much difference am I going to see in zoomed-out, wide
angle taping compared to a $700 Mini-DV camcorder?

Thanks for any feedback.

Clark Coleman

In article <dpunf1$s***@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
cl***@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU says...
In part, the resolution is limited to only 720 x 576 for Mini-DV. Even
if the chips are capable of producing higher resolution, it can only be
used for still images.

In article <MPG.1e2e6c5f87fe6b5989***@news.chc.ihug.co.nz>,
Rob J  <rob.j@nospam.nospam> wrote:
So, is the main advantage of the expensive camera the zoom-in quality?

Clark Coleman

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:02:39 +0000 (UTC), Clark L. Coleman wrote:

Price and "zoom-in quality" (by the way, what's zoom in quality!?) have
absolutely no connection. I work with a 4500$ camera that has 10x optical
and no digital zoom (of course), and my own 350$ camera has 20x optical and
god-only-knows-how-much digital zoom.
Digital zoom, to me, is absolutely useless since it can be done in post
(when editing), optical zoom is... well... the "real" zoom. :)

You really should google for some links with the basics of video explained.

nino ej kej ej donut <jeb***@mejl.da.te.je.bo> writes:

Digital zoom *can* be of limited use with some of the consumer
camcorders that have megapixel sensors.

For example, look at the diagrams for the Canon Optura 40 at
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/optura40elura70-2.php

In normal 4:3 video recording mode, the camera uses a 1280x960 pixel
area for image capture (a subset of the total sensor area of 1632x1224,
which is used only for still images).  This is then downsampled to
720x480 for DV recording.  So for every pixel in the image on tape, the
source CCD has 1.78x2 pixels.  This results in oversampling the image
then digitally filtering to the lower sample rate, which can give
sharper images and better colour (at the cost of more noise from the
smaller sensor pixels).

When you engage digital zoom, the image from the CCD is not reduced *as
much* as in normal mode at first.  When the digital zoom factor reaches
2X, you have a 1:1 correspondence between CCD pixels and output pixels
in the vertical direction, and only a slight enlargement (12%) in the
horizontal direction.  So up to this point, you're getting additional
*real* information that would normally be discarded in the downsampling.

With this camera, digital zoom beyond 2X in video mode becomes pointless
because it's empty magnification.  But 1-2X digital zoom is useful.

In 16:9 mode, the camera uses 1280x720 pixels from the sensor, converted
to 720x480 anamorphic widescreen on tape.  So the useful range of
digital zoom is 1.5X for vertical, 1.78 for horizontal detail.

(In still camera mode, with the largest image size selected, you're
already getting all the information possible from the sensor, so there's
no point to digital zoom in still mode).

    Dave

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:26:22 +0000 (UTC), Dave Martindale wrote:

sorry, I didn't think about that. stupid me. :)

Show quote Hide quote Yeah, that should be the problem when the industry stepped over from the
(medium sized) 8 mm and hi 8 camcorders, which should have larger sensors,
to the miniature mini DV or even smaller,micro MV I think they are called,
with smaller sensors and all the mechanic elements squeezed also.
Show quoteHide quote

That's absolutely wrong.

The VX2100 will have, in comparison to a 1-CCD consumer camcorder:

1.  Better color saturation
2.  Lower color noise
3.  Lower luminance noise
4.  Fewer (and dramatically less noticeable) digital artifacts
5.  Better low-light performance
6.  Higher resolution (525 lines vs. 500 lines or less.


Show quoteHide quote

Sorry, and forgot to add:

The VX2100 has a very good lens, which will result, overall, in sharper,
more contrasty, less distorted video.


Show quoteHide quote

In article <MPG.1e2e6c5f87fe6b5989***@news.chc.ihug.co.nz>,
Rob J  <rob.j@nospam.nospam> wrote:
1) I saw an online guide that lists the resolution of Mini-DV as "500
   lines", compared to 400 lines for Hi8 and 250 lines for VHS. How
   does 720x576 translate to 500 lines?

2) What format would give me more resolution than Mini-DV for my wide
   angle recording needs?

Thanks for your time and feedback.

Clark Coleman

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:56:55 +0000 (UTC), Clark L. Coleman wrote:

HDV. Sony has some amateur HDV models out there, other manufacturers should
be coming up with something similar soon.

Your mixing apples and oranges.

The miniDV format is fixed at 720 x 480 pixels (for NTSC standard video).

NTSC video itself is composed of 525 horizontal lines.

The resolution figures you've mentioned above are horizontal resolution,
i.e. how many discrete points can the camcorder resolve across each
horizontal line.

MiniDV has a theoretical maximum of 525 lines of resolution (it is only
coincidence that this number is the same as the number of horizontal scan
lines in an NTSC frame).  Top-of-the-line prosumer camcorders, e.g.
VX2000/2100 and XL2 can achieve this.

Hi8 tops out at 450 lines or so.  VHS is around 250 lines.

MiniDV cameras will vary in their horizontal resolution capabilities.  There
are cheapie miniDV camcorders out there that do 275 lines, barely VHS
quality.  As I noted, the better prosumer 3-CCD machines can do the max at
525.  Everything else will fall somewhere in between.

You don't need a different format.  You just need a better camera.

Show quoteHide quote

cl***@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

These resolutions are expressed in terms of "lines per picture height"
even though it is horizontal resolution being measured.  You have to
take the aspect ratio into account in the calculations.

So the theoretical maximum horizontal resolution of miniDV is 720 TV
lines *per picture width*, but some of those 720 pixels are actually
intended for picture rise and fall and are outside the 4:3 image area.
The 4:3 area is about 704 pixels wide, so the theoretical maximum
resolution is 704*3/4 = 528 lines *per picture height*.  This gets
rounded to 525.  No miniDV recorder can do better than this.

If you want more pixels, you need to go to HD video, or shoot film and
digitize it later.

    Dave

In article <dq1s5n$e5***@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
cl***@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU says...
Show quoteHide quoteThe new sony HDTV camera might. I don't recall the resolution for  that.

Show quote Hide quote The VX2100 is specced at 525 lines of resolution.  Top-of-the-line consumer
camcorders usually just hit 500 or so, and cheaper ones do considerably less
(I've heard of some that barely pass 275 lines, i.e. VHS resolution).

Additionally, a good 3CCD machine like the VX2100 has lower chroma and
luminance noise, as well as dramatically reduced digital artifacts, all of
which contributes to a sharper picture.


Show quoteHide quote

Show quote Hide quote I have a VX2000, predecessor to the VX2100 but, I think, for all intents and
purposes the same.  I find that the WA range of the lens is a bit too
limited for my purposes (I do travel videography and, sometimes, taking one
more step back to fit in a building could send me over a cliff).  To solve
this, I bought a WA adapter, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I use an Optex, which is a $300 piece of glass.  Other good brands of WAs
include Sony's own ($400) and Century (also $400).  There are less expensive
ones available, e.g. Kenko ($250) and below, but you will find that these
cause considerable distortion, and introduce chromatic abberation that
results in red and blue fringing (even the Optex does this a bit when
lighting conditions aren't optimal).

With a VX2100, I'd expect pretty sharp video in the WA position -- my VX2000
certainly provides it.  For that matter, you will find, in all situations,
that a VX2100 will outperform, rather noticeably, a $700 consumer camcorder.
The only concern is whether you will find it WA enough for your purposes.
If not, you'll have to add accessory glass, and the best will cost you
$400+.


Show quoteHide quote

cl***@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

As a quick frame of reference: a high-end prosumer camcorder like you're
talking about should, if operated properly (decent tripod, etc), give
you wide-angle resolution that's pretty much equivalent to what you see
in broadcast SDTV, or on DVDs.  In other words, the major limit is
actually the limit imposed by the SDTV standard.

On the other hand, if you want pictures as sharp as you see on HDTV,
you're going to need a HDTV camera and recorder.

    Dave

Show quote Hide quote You're certainly going to see a difference-in your bank account.Unless you
want broadcast quality, the $700 mini dv is fine, for keeping the memory
which is what the camcorders were originally designed for.And if ever
something happens to the $2000 camcorder you're going to bang your head
against the wall, at least with the $700 one you will have money left to get
a good protective case and a nice protective filter for the lens, I have a
skylight(1A)37 mm.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:45:12 +0200, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

put your signature at the end of your post. like this:

How am I supposed to be doing this?I use outlook express 6.0
Show quoteHide quote

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:16:47 +0200, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

OE is evil when it comes to quoting and signatures. Try using QuoteFix.

On 1/16/2006, nino ej kej ej donut managed to type:
It's more Tzortzakakis Dimitrios than OE. He just hasn't figured out to
move his cursor ahead of the sig before typing.

(I use OE for e-mail and don't have the problem. Nor did I when I used
it for news.)

Gino

Then I would be top posting.
Show quoteHide quote

On 1/23/2006, Tzortzakakis Dimitrios managed to type:
Show quoteHide quoteIncorrect.

Top posting is posting ahead of other people's posts. Typing your post
ahead of the sig is not top posting (not that top posting is so bad,
IMNSHO). The sig text is meant to follow the posts, or at least your
reply to them. Take a look at what other people (ALL other people!) do.

In case you don't know, 'sig' is short for 'signature'. That is the
name of the text you put on every post to identify who you are.

For example, in your posts, the sig starts with your family name
'Tzortzakakis' and ends with your e-mail address, which you provide
(slightly obscured to fight spam) as 'dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr'. I
don't know if you provide the two hyphens '--' or if your newsreader
does. However, your posts and the posts to which you reply follow the
signature, which is pretty strange. I even wonder if you copy and paste
the sig into your posts by yourself, instead of telling your newsreader
what the text is and allowing it to place it automatically in the
normal place.

The comment about Outlook Express was to nino AKA donut, and not
specifically meant for you. Come to think of it, the other comment
probably was too. Oh well.

BTW, QuoteFix is a very useful product for improving OE's handling of
quotes (I use OE + QuoteFix for my e-mail).

Gino

Avoid the Canon Powershot A620 digital camera
Which digital camera records 30fps video?
Hi-8 vs other 8s.
Adobe Premier Elements and CyberLink PowerDVD, picture aspect ratio problem
bestpricecameras.com are N.Y. style con artists
Factory pressed dvd movies, ps2, psp & xbox backups for sale !!!
Firewire dropping on Sony HC19E
time-lapse + waterproof housing + digital media
Canon A620: no good for video
Sony HC40 audio incompatibility?