|
|
Posted by Jim S on 01/10/07 08:36
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:50jh53F1g92p1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
> news:45a480d7$1@clear.net.nz...
>> With regard to the Sony HDRFX1E, it has received excellent reviews, for
>> example, see this one:
>>
>> http://www.videomaker.com/article/10594/
>
> Do a google search on FX1 and "digital artifacts." Also search for the
> artificial bandwidth limitation that Sony imposed on the camera, primarily
> to ensure that it doesn't compete with its' more expensive HDV and HD
> models.
There is discussion in this web site:
http://usatoday.com.com/Sony_HDR_FX1/4505-6500_7-31085889.html
about how, in theory, MPEG-2 compression of HDV can lead to compression
artifacts when extreme detail and motion can overstress the compression
scheme. However, the article concludes that, despite this theory, the
reviewers were unable to detect any significant artifacts with the FX1.
Similar conclusions were reached in these articles:
http://www.videomaker.com/article/10594/
http://hd24.com/hdv_primer.htm
>> Similarly the 10 megapixel Sony DSC-N2 is reviewed here:
>>
>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_n2-review/
>>
>> Particularly with shots in bright daylight, you would get great A3 sized
>> prints with this little camera.
>
> Who cares about shots in bright daylight? I shoot under all conditions,
> and anyone interested in making 13 x 19 prints will want to do the same.
I have managed to get really good A3 prints from a Sony point and shoot
camera in all lights. The video quality of movies on these cameras is also
improving. But I do enjoy the wider angle and better lense quality that more
professional cameras can give you, so I use point and shoot cameras only
when it is impractical to lug around my (much) heavier camera gear! Anyway,
I'm due on a plane very shortly, so I'll leave any further discussion to
others.
Cheers, Jim
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|