the vx2100 vs. hc1?
 

hi,
yes, it seems to be stupid to compare the vx2100 and the hc1.
but i´d like to know about the real resolution of the vx2100 in 4:3 mode and the hc1´s in hd, cropped to 4:3.
meanig you film the 4:3 resolution chart normally with the vx2k and with the hc1 you do it that the chart fills out the 16:9 picture area from top to bottom of the pic.

like this:

http://hometown.aol.de/Carnivoren/Unbenannt-1+Kopie.jpg

so is the hc1´s real resolution really higher than the vx´s?

I don' have the specifics you aer asking for, but teh answer to you question is yes, the HC1 does have better resolution when recording in HDV, than the VX2100.
Simply put, the HC1 uses almost twice as mant pixels as the VX2100.
So even though you are downconverting and cropping your video to 4:3 form 16:9, your original HDV video source footage would have started off with better resolution than standard DV.
As I said. your end product will be scaled down, but, the actual pitcure will be crisper and clearer than the VX2100. It's just a simple matter of more pixels, just like comparing a 2 mega pixel camera, to a 4 mega pixel camera.

If you mask the HC1's chip down and film in the 4:3 mode you're effectively 'telephotoing' the lens. But at the same time you're reducing the effective size of the chip, such that differential focus gets harder to obtain for any given angle of view.

The overall resolution might well be higher than the VX, but as it'll be worse in low light it could well be that the VX gives more pleasing pictures. Not everything's down to resolution, or Canon would be out of the game long ago.

tom.

Tom is right.
Not only resolution matters.
The chip's size, color reproduction, skin tones, manual control... are all things that I consider to be more important than resolution.
(And indeed, that are important reasons why Canon's are popular to a certain crowd)

>As I said. your end product will be scaled down, but, the actual pitcure will >be crisper and clearer than the VX2100. It's just a simple matter of more >pixels, just like comparing a 2 mega pixel camera, to a 4 mega pixel camera.

While this may be true ideally, the practice is different.

The higher resolution video may yield a better picture when downconverted by a factor of two only if the downconversion filter (low pass) performs
better than the anti-aliasing filter in front of the CCD. Steeper filtering generally causes more spatial halos even though the result is sharper, although it is easier to keep the colors aligned in time with digital processing.

As pointed out before, for similar photo site design, a larger photo site (fewer megapixels in the same sensor area) will collect more photons and offer better
signal to noise performance. Given this difference in sensor performance,
I think that in lower light, the higher resolution camera lens would have to operate wide open, which isn't the sharpest aperture of the lens due more to the lens design and due in part to reduced DOF. Video cameras don't have
much DOF, but I can notice a major increase in sharpness when operating
my VX2000 at f/4 vs. wider apertures.

"Video cameras don't have much DOF, but I can notice a major increase in sharpness when operating my VX2000 at f/4 vs. wider apertures.''

Not many people complain of that Gints ~ usually everyone's saying how huge the DOF is, and how can they limit it? Maybe just a typo on your part.

F/4 is indeed the VX2k's best aperture as it's here that vignetting has ceased and it's before the onset of visible degredation caused by diffraction. But I'm constantly amazed at how good my VX is wide open - at any focal length. I'm mush happier shooting at f1.6 than at f11, that's for sure.

tom.