XL1s Photo mode

Andre De Clercq · November 13th, 2002, 10:55 AM

Although I never use my camcorder for dig photography, I recently explored a number of "photomode" concepts on camcorders. Conclusion: the cheapest digital photocamera beats even the best camcorders. Simply because the CCD structures, number of pixels, shuttering and readout architectures are not optimized for digital still photography. Several "concepts" (tricks) are used and "sold" by smart marketing people. The main problem is the basic interlace CCD readout and memory structures in a consumer camcorder ( and the professional progressive ones don't care about "the other application") The "solutions"go from simple line doubling through line interpolation, over the RB (even) and G(odd) concepts from Canon and more recently the use of a mechanical shutter for delayed readout of the interlaced CCD structure (Sony PC110, GL2(?)). Although the shutter concepts doesn't show (shouldn't) resolution loss the total number of pixels is still far below the cheapest dig camera..

November 13th, 2002, 10:55 AM	#16
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Although I never use my camcorder for dig photography, I recently explored a number of "photomode" concepts on camcorders. Conclusion: the cheapest digital photocamera beats even the best camcorders. Simply because the CCD structures, number of pixels, shuttering and readout architectures are not optimized for digital still photography. Several "concepts" (tricks) are used and "sold" by smart marketing people. The main problem is the basic interlace CCD readout and memory structures in a consumer camcorder ( and the professional progressive ones don't care about "the other application") The "solutions"go from simple line doubling through line interpolation, over the RB (even) and G(odd) concepts from Canon and more recently the use of a mechanical shutter for delayed readout of the interlaced CCD structure (Sony PC110, GL2(?)). Although the shutter concepts doesn't show (shouldn't) resolution loss the total number of pixels is still far below the cheapest dig camera..