Well there you go, why it isn't considered a still frame camera. Of course the HD100/101/200/250 will have a better image due to lens and electronics. As DSP explained, lighting is key. If you recieved poor quality images due to low light with the HD1/10 and the FX1/Z1 then it is obvious you are expecting far to much from video. You have experienced poor results from a prgressive and interlaced cam. The answer is clearly to add more light and in a proper way. It is not the cam per say. You have the greatest low cost tools ever available, and you can not achieve a proper result. Personally I have no idea why you would choose an interlaced format for what you ask. It seems you are starting out ass-backwards. You want the best still frame from an interlaced source? The only advantage of interlaced is VIDEO(motion)! We all agree that your origional question was a little goofy. Do you understand interlaced vs. progressive for video? I hope so.
My only advice is light correctly. Use a tri-pod. And use a high shutter speed. If you do so you should have incredable 1MP 30fps shots from your HD1/10. I do.
Unless your cam's broke you should kick ass. Use a HD100 ande you should be laughing!

Thanks Glenn, I will try that out.

The reason I selected the interlaced Z1 is that I want resolution. In a static scene, both the fields can be used to create a higher resolution frame that can be created with a 720P camera.

I still stick to the idea that a still digital camera will produce better results in lower light then any of the video cameras I have tried. I just need to prove it some day ;) It is probably due to the fact that the Camera CCD is larger then the Camcorder CCD and allows more light in the first place.

I want to use natural indoor lighting, but I guess with a 1/3 sensor, it's not going to happen...

That logic is incorrect. For starters the resolution of a format does not determine how much detail is within that frame. Have a read of the DV.com's Low Cost HD-shootout, for an understanding of how the cams compare as far as resolution captured.

That is a great read. I got the Z1 a year ago, and did not have the resolution details I have now. I was going under the assumption that a 1920x1080 frame will have more detail then a 1280x720 frame. Its really should, but that is not always the case depending on the camera...

Progressive scan foe extracting video still
 

the JVC 10U has been mentioned a few times on this thread - asking if the JVC-GR hd 1 could be used for the same quality ?? thanks

The JVC HD1 sould be pretty close to the 10U, but the HD1 has more edge-enhancement.

canon s80 - 4 bills - records xga@30fps.Kurth

Looks like XGA (1024x768) records at 15 FPS. VGA (640x480) records at 30 fps.

Correct.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/spec.../canon_s80.asp


I'm confused why we are even having this conversation, besides being nerds. It doesn't matter how much resolution a still cam gives you at what frame rate, they are completely lacking the controls needed to produce good video.
For starters, does anyone care about what kind of audio they deliver? Wanna lobby Canon to include XLR inputs on the S90?
How about a smooth zoom you can use while shooting?
Manual focus while shooting?
Manual iris control while shooting?

I've taken a good look at video clips from most of the high end still cameras that shoot video. Even the best of them looks like ass compared to my old miniDV Canon ZR40. Stuttery, choppy, poorly exposed and overly compressed. These aren't even in the same world. Sure, I like the movie mode on my SD500, I use it a lot when my video camera isn't around, but never would I consider it a viable alternative.

If I really wanted to shoot good video off a still camera, I would buy a Canon 1d Mk2 that shoots 8fps, and put a fast prime lens on it. Granted you'll never get any usable audio, but I'd have bragging rights like you've never seen.

That's my $0.02

Makes sense to me why someone might want a still camera which records many frames per second over a long period of time, even if the ultimate goal wasn't to produce a video from that. One of the biggest challenges of photography in some situations is capturing exactly the right moment, so having the equivalent of a continuous motor drive could be quite useful. And who wouldn't want the option to be able to make a good print from any frame of a video in case someone wanted that? I advertise prints from HDV now but caution people that they're not a replacement for proper still photographs; how cool would it be to really have unlimited images at true printable quality?

Joseph - you're right - it had been a while since I read the review , but the dpreview clip looks pretty good at 15fps. The 1dmk11 only shoots 40 frames at 8.5fps. Maybe they're not quite there for some uses but they'll get better and better. We can expect 16x9 hd soon , maybe from panasonic with the replacement for the lx1. Still cameras w/video will probably put consumer just-video cameras out of business in the next 3 years. I personally can see alot of uses for these cameras. Kurth

Sure it is not a replacement for a real video camera, but it would be perfect for a project I need to do, if it existed ;). The video modes from still cameras will most likely be too compressed compared to single shots. I was hoping some camera out there could capture 30 still pictures a second for at least a few seconds, but that does not seem to be the case yet. Perhaps the RED camera will solve this problem for me soon...

Fair enough. There are always certain people who need specific things. Sports photography is a good point. If you had a video camera shooting 30fps of quality printable photos, why would the average person need a still camera? (lots of exceptions I know)

The debate of "could a still camera replace a video camera, or vice versa" for the average consumer is pretty interesting.

And, FWIW, I'm buying a Panasonic FX01 for it's 16:9 video recording mode, but still keeping my video camera. :)

30 fps - printable video frames in HD
 

for dylan or all - in order to get clean HD frame by frame video graps for printing - should the camera be progressive scan ? thanks