|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 18th, 2005, 05:08 PM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
Last call for PC350
Last chance to get your PC350
http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/tourist/videocamera/products/index.cfm?PD=17707&KM=DCR-PC350E(JE)&LG=1 replaced by the HC90, which has the distinct disadvantage of not recording the full width of the 1/3" CCD in 16:9 mode but alas is cheaper
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
March 19th, 2005, 12:38 PM | #2 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico
Posts: 644
|
Hey John - curious why you say the hc90 doesn't record 16:9 the same as the 350 ? It says in the specs 2050k pixels for video and I've read from another poster in another forum that it's the same . The hc90 ( ntsc version ) also does true 30p instead of the bad 24p of the 350 which really interested me more since I'm in that world . Iwas still toying with the idea of the pal350 as a second or third camera when the specs for the hc90 came out along with a good hands-on in another forum. Also the 16:9 lcd is very cool and it's cheaper. take care Kurth
|
March 19th, 2005, 02:39 PM | #3 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
in 4:3 video mode both cams spec a 35mm equivalent of 45mm at the wide end of things
however in 16:9 the HC90 is a miserly 42.8mm - around 5% wider the PC350 gate crashes at 37.5mm which is almost the full width of the 1/3" chip (37mm) (I have measured it) It is for this reason why the HC90 can only be considered 1/4" cam for 16:9 video if this is no importance to you get the HC90
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
March 19th, 2005, 03:33 PM | #4 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico
Posts: 644
|
John - can't this simply be a focal length issue difference between the two lenses and not how much of the chip is receiving said image ? I think I see what you're saying - if both @ 4/3 are the same focal length using the full chip then the relative usage @16:9 would lead you to expect similar results. I'm fairly ignorant about optical theory but doesn't the distance from the chip to the lens affect this combination of events? thanks Kurth
|
March 20th, 2005, 01:53 PM | #5 |
Major Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: US & THEM
Posts: 827
|
whichever way you look at it
37.5mm plays 42.8mm for an assumed identical zoom of 5.1-51mm
__________________
John Jay Beware ***PLUGGER-BYTES*** |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|