VX2100 resolution at DVinfo.net

Mahes Kirby · October 18th, 2007, 05:47 PM

Hello everyone

I am new to the forum. I bought a Sony VX2100 and was surprised that several video frames were of poor resolution. The colour is definitely better than my old Sony TRV410E camcorder bought in 1999. But, the resolution of the latter is much better. I bought vx2100 off the internet - it came without an English Manual and some of the parts which should have been in the box. The box had been opened - and I am now worried that I have been sold returned goods as new. The retailer claims that the box was opened for quality assurance which seems to contradict the outcome. I am hoping that the problem is a feature of my inexperience and not due to faults with my camcorder since everyone else in this forum seems really pleased with the VX2100. I have posted samples of the problem at:

http://rani.aeshost.net/webcasts/dvinfo/jaggies.html

Is this what I should expect?

Mike Rehmus · October 18th, 2007, 06:40 PM

Not certain what your complaint is. Video frames are going to have jaggies when printed out because of their relatively low resolution.

When you view the pictures on your television monitor, how do they look?

As to another video camera exhibiting higher resolution...if both are recording in the same video standard, they are going to be nearly identical. Nearly because the more expensive the camera, the better the image will normally appear—Has to do with CCD size. But the resolution will be very similar.

Progressive scan in the 2100 is not good no matter what you do, however. I have never found a good use for it in this camera family.

As for parts and manuals being missing, the vendor owes you the missing parts unless you purchased it from one of the vendors that plays games like some here in the U.S.

Hubert Duijzer · October 19th, 2007, 12:57 PM

Nothing wrong with the quality.

The resolution is 720x576 (sd PAL). It is by far not as good as a still camera.
It shouldn't be used as a still camera either.
Try to whitebalance correctly and keep the shutterspeed at 1/50th as a start. 1/1000 is really high for video.

Boyd Ostroff · October 19th, 2007, 01:16 PM

I'd have to agree, those stills look like what I'd expect from my own VX-2000, or any interlaced standard definition camcorder for that matter. As Mike and Hubert have said, DV is really rather low resolution and is intended to be viewed as moving images on a TV screen, not for stills.

Not sure why your older, less expensive camcorder would provide any better images? It might have to do with the default image sharpness setting. Go to the custom presets and experiment with different settings to see what you prefer. Personally, I dislike the over-sharpened "digital" look which is often favored by less expensive cameras.

But if you're talking about the resolution in STILL picture mode, then your old camera may very well be superior in terms of pixel count. Some consumer cameras have higher resolution CCD's than the VX-2100, and in photo mode they can provide a sharper image. But in VIDEO mode the playing field is leveled since the PAL spec requires 720x576. No matter what the physical pixel dimensions of the CCD's are, they will be scaled to this size when recording video to tape.

Jim Sobolewski · October 19th, 2007, 01:37 PM

If your using auto focus,you might try manual focus instead.

Mahes Kirby · October 19th, 2007, 04:27 PM

Many thanks for all your response. I am relieved that I dont have a faulty camcorder. I guess I will just have to get used to using a prosumer as opposed to my old less advanced model.

Chris Barcellos · October 19th, 2007, 04:41 PM

Remember, too, that if you are shooting in auto mode, you won't have control of gain, and other factors that can cause damage to the video image. Get to know the controls, how to deepen the depth of field, increase and decrease shutter speed, and use the internal neutral density filters to maximize your image quality. You also must understand that if you but this camera on 16:9 mode, you are losing resolution over a camera that has true 16:9 chip set up.

These camera have served a lot of us well over the years, and they are still the best low light cameras in the prosumer division.

Mahes Kirby · October 19th, 2007, 04:51 PM

I obviously have a lot to learn. Please could someone point me to a good tutorial site for vx2100? Thanks.

Marco Wagner · October 19th, 2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Sobolewski

If your using auto focus,you might try manual focus instead.

you can also adjust sharpness up or down to get desired results.

Boyd Ostroff · October 19th, 2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahes Kirby

I obviously have a lot to learn. Please could someone point me to a good tutorial site for vx2100? Thanks.

The VX-2100 is very similar to the PD-150/PD-170, with the biggest difference being the audio. Have a look at these:

http://www.urbanfox.tv/workbooks/sonypd150/index.htm

Also see the BBC guides to the VX-2000:

http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/dvgu...X2000Guide.pdf
http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/dvgu...00PickMeUp.pdf

Mahes Kirby · October 19th, 2007, 06:59 PM

Thanks for all your tips and pointers. I initially captured frames using Movie Maker, in which I cannot seem to control the quality of its jpegs. So, I tried using Sonic CinePlayer to capture the image - a bit of a hit and miss affair since it seems to reposition its place in the avi file. But, I can get best quality bmp files, which when compressed to best quality jpeg produces some remarkably good images amongst a lot of others showing interlacing.

I will also see what Premier Elments 2 does and report back.
I am sure I am going to love the new camcorder and that the stills will be better once I read all the posts in this forum about them.

Mahes
PS The old TRV produces 768 x 576; the vx has 720 x 576. So, there is nt much of a difference there. I will experiment with the settings.

Mahes Kirby · October 19th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hubert Duijzer

Nothing wrong with the quality.

The resolution is 720x576 (sd PAL). It is by far not as good as a still camera.
It shouldn't be used as a still camera either.
Try to whitebalance correctly and keep the shutterspeed at 1/50th as a start. 1/1000 is really high for video.

I used a high speed as suggested in one of the posts - esp since it was windy. The leaves have dropped now - but I will experiment.

Hubert Duijzer · October 20th, 2007, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahes Kirby

I used a high speed as suggested in one of the posts - esp since it was windy. The leaves have dropped now - but I will experiment.

In some situations is a high shutterspeed usefull. But as you can read in the links that Boyd pointed out, the normal (PAL) shutterspeed should be at 50. That should be just right for normal situations.

October 18th, 2007, 05:47 PM	#1
Mahes Kirby New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 7	VX2100 resolution Hello everyone I am new to the forum. I bought a Sony VX2100 and was surprised that several video frames were of poor resolution. The colour is definitely better than my old Sony TRV410E camcorder bought in 1999. But, the resolution of the latter is much better. I bought vx2100 off the internet - it came without an English Manual and some of the parts which should have been in the box. The box had been opened - and I am now worried that I have been sold returned goods as new. The retailer claims that the box was opened for quality assurance which seems to contradict the outcome. I am hoping that the problem is a feature of my inexperience and not due to faults with my camcorder since everyone else in this forum seems really pleased with the VX2100. I have posted samples of the problem at: http://rani.aeshost.net/webcasts/dvinfo/jaggies.html Is this what I should expect?

October 18th, 2007, 06:40 PM	#2
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Not certain what your complaint is. Video frames are going to have jaggies when printed out because of their relatively low resolution. When you view the pictures on your television monitor, how do they look? As to another video camera exhibiting higher resolution...if both are recording in the same video standard, they are going to be nearly identical. Nearly because the more expensive the camera, the better the image will normally appear—Has to do with CCD size. But the resolution will be very similar. Progressive scan in the 2100 is not good no matter what you do, however. I have never found a good use for it in this camera family. As for parts and manuals being missing, the vendor owes you the missing parts unless you purchased it from one of the vendors that plays games like some here in the U.S. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

October 19th, 2007, 04:27 PM	#6
Mahes Kirby New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 7	Many thanks Many thanks for all your response. I am relieved that I dont have a faulty camcorder. I guess I will just have to get used to using a prosumer as opposed to my old less advanced model.

October 19th, 2007, 04:41 PM	#7
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Remember, too, that if you are shooting in auto mode, you won't have control of gain, and other factors that can cause damage to the video image. Get to know the controls, how to deepen the depth of field, increase and decrease shutter speed, and use the internal neutral density filters to maximize your image quality. You also must understand that if you but this camera on 16:9 mode, you are losing resolution over a camera that has true 16:9 chip set up. These camera have served a lot of us well over the years, and they are still the best low light cameras in the prosumer division. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

October 19th, 2007, 04:51 PM	#8
Mahes Kirby New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 7	Thanks again I obviously have a lot to learn. Please could someone point me to a good tutorial site for vx2100? Thanks.

October 19th, 2007, 12:57 PM	#3
Hubert Duijzer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Netherlands Posts: 177	Nothing wrong with the quality. The resolution is 720x576 (sd PAL). It is by far not as good as a still camera. It shouldn't be used as a still camera either. Try to whitebalance correctly and keep the shutterspeed at 1/50th as a start. 1/1000 is really high for video.

October 19th, 2007, 01:16 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I'd have to agree, those stills look like what I'd expect from my own VX-2000, or any interlaced standard definition camcorder for that matter. As Mike and Hubert have said, DV is really rather low resolution and is intended to be viewed as moving images on a TV screen, not for stills. Not sure why your older, less expensive camcorder would provide any better images? It might have to do with the default image sharpness setting. Go to the custom presets and experiment with different settings to see what you prefer. Personally, I dislike the over-sharpened "digital" look which is often favored by less expensive cameras. But if you're talking about the resolution in STILL picture mode, then your old camera may very well be superior in terms of pixel count. Some consumer cameras have higher resolution CCD's than the VX-2100, and in photo mode they can provide a sharper image. But in VIDEO mode the playing field is leveled since the PAL spec requires 720x576. No matter what the physical pixel dimensions of the CCD's are, they will be scaled to this size when recording video to tape.

October 19th, 2007, 01:37 PM	#5
Jim Sobolewski New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Syracuse,NY Posts: 13	If your using auto focus,you might try manual focus instead.

October 19th, 2007, 06:59 PM	#11
Mahes Kirby New Boot Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 7	Thanks Thanks for all your tips and pointers. I initially captured frames using Movie Maker, in which I cannot seem to control the quality of its jpegs. So, I tried using Sonic CinePlayer to capture the image - a bit of a hit and miss affair since it seems to reposition its place in the avi file. But, I can get best quality bmp files, which when compressed to best quality jpeg produces some remarkably good images amongst a lot of others showing interlacing. I will also see what Premier Elments 2 does and report back. I am sure I am going to love the new camcorder and that the stills will be better once I read all the posts in this forum about them. Mahes PS The old TRV produces 768 x 576; the vx has 720 x 576. So, there is nt much of a difference there. I will experiment with the settings.