Why would stills from a Optura 200 be so much better than a GL-2 still? at DVinfo.net

John VVV · January 29th, 2003, 12:03 AM

I've taken plenty of pictures (to card) with both cameras and the Optura 1.3 M stills are much better (sharper, better color) than stills from the 1.7m GL-2. I don't wish to start the "get a real digital still camera thread" just curious.

Thanks, John V.

Chris Hurd · January 29th, 2003, 12:13 AM

The Optura 200MC is actually using a real 1.3 megapixel CCD, whereas the GL2 achieves the *equivalent* of 1.7 megapixels through a process that samples multiple points per pixel. It's a function of the pixel-shift feature of the GL2 CCD's. The GL2 CCD's are not native 1.7 megapixel; they're actually 0.41 megapixel (410,000 pixels; a lot for a three-chip camcorder). So instead this 1.7mp image size is somewhat interpolated. Just a different way of doing the math by Canon.

Anyway that's the reason, because you're looking at one image that's really is 1.3mp and another that's 1.7mp drawn out of 0.41mp thanks to pixel-shift. You may ask, why not just pack three of those 1.3mp chips into the GL2, and the answer is because that would really jack the price up, way beyond what it is now. It's all part of the plan. Hope this helps,

John VVV · January 29th, 2003, 08:08 PM

Thanks Chris, The Optura, while just 1.3 M takes great stills. They even at times look better than my 3.3M Canon Powershot G-1 stills.

Regards, John.

Chris Hurd · January 31st, 2003, 12:57 AM

Hi John, probably because of the improvements in image processing technology made by Canon in the time between the Powershot G1 and the Optura 200MC.

Jeff Donald · January 31st, 2003, 07:31 AM

You may also be using the G1 in a lower resolution and higher compression mode. I routinely produce photo quality 8x10's with my G1. However, I use it in the RAW mode almost exclusively.

John VVV · February 1st, 2003, 01:27 PM

Thanks all, I guess that compared with the GL-2 we were pleasantly suprised with the quality of the still shots from the Optura 200MC (and the video is also great).

We took the Optura on our trip to China just because it was so much smaller than our GL-2 and we also took our PowerShot G-1. Once we started looking at the results we were both very impressed at the quality of the stills from the Optura. We took the G-1 to be our primary still camera and did shoot in the highest quality mode (just below RAW). In many cases the Optura stills do look better than the G-1. If the developement of the canon cameras has moved that far ahead we may consider buying a new PowerShot G-3 to add to our canon collection!

One distinct advantage that both the GL-2 and the Optura have over our G-1 (and most digital still cameras is their telephoto lenses and image stabilization). We have used our GL-2 to take wildlife photos and it is great to use the 20X lens. Although the GL-2 stills are not too high quality just being able to get a close-up helps.

While as others have pointed out, the video camera's still function normally does not replace a high quality digital still camera but the Optura 200 MC sure comes very close. If anyone is interested I could email you a still from the Optura.

Regards, John V.

January 29th, 2003, 12:03 AM	#1
John VVV Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 32	Why would stills from a Optura 200 be so much better than a GL-2 still? I've taken plenty of pictures (to card) with both cameras and the Optura 1.3 M stills are much better (sharper, better color) than stills from the 1.7m GL-2. I don't wish to start the "get a real digital still camera thread" just curious. Thanks, John V.

January 29th, 2003, 12:13 AM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The Optura 200MC is actually using a real 1.3 megapixel CCD, whereas the GL2 achieves the equivalent of 1.7 megapixels through a process that samples multiple points per pixel. It's a function of the pixel-shift feature of the GL2 CCD's. The GL2 CCD's are not native 1.7 megapixel; they're actually 0.41 megapixel (410,000 pixels; a lot for a three-chip camcorder). So instead this 1.7mp image size is somewhat interpolated. Just a different way of doing the math by Canon. Anyway that's the reason, because you're looking at one image that's really is 1.3mp and another that's 1.7mp drawn out of 0.41mp thanks to pixel-shift. You may ask, why not just pack three of those 1.3mp chips into the GL2, and the answer is because that would really jack the price up, way beyond what it is now. It's all part of the plan. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 31st, 2003, 12:57 AM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hi John, probably because of the improvements in image processing technology made by Canon in the time between the Powershot G1 and the Optura 200MC. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 31st, 2003, 07:31 AM	#5
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	You may also be using the G1 in a lower resolution and higher compression mode. I routinely produce photo quality 8x10's with my G1. However, I use it in the RAW mode almost exclusively. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 29th, 2003, 08:08 PM	#3
John VVV Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 32	Thanks Chris, The Optura, while just 1.3 M takes great stills. They even at times look better than my 3.3M Canon Powershot G-1 stills. Regards, John.

February 1st, 2003, 01:27 PM	#6
John VVV Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 32	Thanks all, I guess that compared with the GL-2 we were pleasantly suprised with the quality of the still shots from the Optura 200MC (and the video is also great). We took the Optura on our trip to China just because it was so much smaller than our GL-2 and we also took our PowerShot G-1. Once we started looking at the results we were both very impressed at the quality of the stills from the Optura. We took the G-1 to be our primary still camera and did shoot in the highest quality mode (just below RAW). In many cases the Optura stills do look better than the G-1. If the developement of the canon cameras has moved that far ahead we may consider buying a new PowerShot G-3 to add to our canon collection! One distinct advantage that both the GL-2 and the Optura have over our G-1 (and most digital still cameras is their telephoto lenses and image stabilization). We have used our GL-2 to take wildlife photos and it is great to use the 20X lens. Although the GL-2 stills are not too high quality just being able to get a close-up helps. While as others have pointed out, the video camera's still function normally does not replace a high quality digital still camera but the Optura 200 MC sure comes very close. If anyone is interested I could email you a still from the Optura. Regards, John V.