Last call for PC350 at DVinfo.net

John Jay · March 18th, 2005, 05:08 PM

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

Kurth Bousman · March 19th, 2005, 12:38 PM

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

John Jay · March 19th, 2005, 02:39 PM

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

Kurth Bousman · March 19th, 2005, 03:33 PM

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

John Jay · March 20th, 2005, 01:53 PM

whichever way you look at it

37.5mm plays 42.8mm for an assumed identical zoom of 5.1-51mm

March 18th, 2005, 05:08 PM	#1
John Jay 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, 02:39 PM	#3
John Jay 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 20th, 2005, 01:53 PM	#5
John Jay 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*

March 19th, 2005, 12:38 PM	#2
Kurth Bousman 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, 03:33 PM	#4
Kurth Bousman 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