I'm still trying to decide between purchasing a TRV22 or a TRV33, and need some more information. I'm not bothered by the difference in prices of these two cameras - I just want to buy the "best camera for me".

I realize the TRV22 has a bigger CCD and produces a better quality capture in low light. Has anyone found the TRV33 low light performance unacceptable?

How does the video capture quality compare between these two models? Is the TRV33 a much sharper image? or is the quality very similar? I'm not going to be using it for stills, so I'm only interested in moving video. (Wouldn't both of these devices still only output the same NTSC or PAL resolutions?)

Has any actually tried both devices? any other comments that could help me choose?

An extensive discussion on this point can be found through the topic - "TRV33 Questions" started a few days ago.

I've been following that thread, but unfortunately it a thread full of questions and very few answers.

I'm really looking for opinions on the video resolution of the two devices. The TRV22 is 350k, and the TRV33 is 680k. Thats a big difference! I'd like to know if these numbers equate to a real difference in video quality from those that have used both these models. Isn't NTSC resolution about 350k - if so how is the extra resolution (680k) of the TRV33 used?

Hello all!

Alright, I've been reading these posts and I too am about to make a purchase. My Great Debate, like many of you, was between the TRV22 and TRV33. I think this board is great and it inspired me to go out and seek the answers to the main questions that myself and others had been asking about these cameras. I am by no means a tech guru. I'm just a guy with a well-rounded backround in technology and common sense, depending on whom you ask.

Hold on…let me get on my soapbox for a minute… Ok… Firstly, I am firm believer in buying the right item for the right task. What I mean by this is if you want to shoot video, buy a camcorder. If you want to take pictures, get a digital still camera. All of us techno geeks really get off on the idea of combining devices. But admit it, it never really works out, and there is always some trade-off. I haven't given up on finding that magic device, but I know when I'm beat. That being said, I'll get off my soapbox and present my argument as to why I think the DCR-TRV22 is one of the best deals going.

Quite possibly the biggest question that I have read on this board is "Will the lower pixel count on the TRV22's CCD's affect video performance?" My theory is "no" and I'll tell you why. To quickly recap, the CCD's are in charge of pixels and color. Now, if you look at prosumer camcorders, typically you get a 3-CCD camera with the advertised benefit being enhanced color integrity because each CCD handles its own primary color. When you closely examine the pixel resolution on these high-end cameras, the highest count you find, for example on the Canon GL-2, is 380,000 effective pixels. Bearing in mind that the advantage of having 3 CCD's is predominantly a color issue, what does that say about the importance of a pixel count beyond that?

My educated guess based on my research, is that the extra pixels on the TRV33 seem to be exclusively for the sake of the megapixel "still camera" feature. But here's the trade off. With the TRV33 you get a smaller and therefore less effective CCD (TRV33's 1/4.7" as opposed to TRV22's 1/4" CCD), which will result in lower quality low-light video recording. Additionally some of the articles I've read imply that the larger CCD positively affects normal light recording quality as well.

Also note theat typical capture rates for high quality digital video are 640x480. Multiply those together and what do you get….307,200 pixels. 380,000 is actually overkill.

Regarding horizontal resolution, granted you loose 20 out of 520 lines of resolution, but the majority of TV's out there have about 240. I'm thinking you're not going to miss those 20 lines TOO much.

For me, the other features of the TRV22 are gravy. They are identical to the TRV33. You get the option of a widescreen format (16:9), cool effects, USB Streaming, MPEG recording, Super Steadyshot, Nightvision, you can still snap a couple of stills plenty good enough to email to your friends or family, and I don't care what the critics say, I still think the spot focus feature is awesome. For my money the TRV22 is a far better deal not only to the TRV33 but to any camcorder in its price range. It's a great little package and it's probably going to be the one in stock. Sony is really pushing that megapixel feature.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I'd love to hear any thought on this. Once again I'm no expert, but I'm going with the TRV22 Happy Camcordering!

Bill

Here are some of my sources:

http://www.cyberfilmschool.com/columns/saylor_DV101_13.htm

http://www.unbeatable.com/products/camcorders/CAMCOInfo.htm

bill,
that was one logical analysis you got there. thanks! and yes those pro-sumer cams have around the same video resolution as the trv22.

Folks:

the proof is in the research.

I went to a Best Buy store that had the 33 and 22 next to each other.

I imaged a sign on the other side of the store with small print. It was the sign that discussed their policies, so there was lots of small print.

When I put the TRV33 camera into the highest optical magnification (10x), I was able to read the print on the small viewfinder, the touch screen and on the nearby monitor.

When I put the TRV22 at 10x, I was barely able to resolve the letters. The digital zoom on the 22 did not help much.

The digital zoom on the 33, set to 20x actually help me read the print better.

this is a simple experiment that is the only thing that is important to me. Getting great color in low light settings is silly.

Not being able to read the letters on signs or resolving facial expressions is a critical problem.

For trv33:
520 lines
35mm Conversion: 50-500mm (Camera Mode) 42-420mm (Memory Mode)

For trv22:
500 lines
35mm Conversion: 42-420mm (Camera Mode) 42-420mm (Memory Mode)

So trv33 has a larger focal length.. it might be the reason you can read the letters by x10 zoom with trv33 but not with trv22.. They have different zooming power. As for the digital zoom, if you can't read it with optical zoom, there is very little possibility to read something when 'digitally' enlarged. I don't know if there is a 'big' difference between 520 lines and 500 lines, but definitely, something is 'different' between two camcorders.

Thanks for the focal length conversions. That makes sense. Maybe because there are more pixels on the TRV33, the CCD interpolated more accurately. Just a guess.

I love this board.

Thanks,
Bill

MADiamant.

Yes you are correct however you are forgetting one important thing. The 33 indeed does have a longer focal length and so will zoom in better, which is its advantage, however you didn't do a comparison on the other side of the coin. Wide angle. As the 33's focal length is longer is will not zoom back as much as the 22. This is critical as I found out when I purchased a Hi8 years ago. The difference in wide angle is considerable and I think it more important to be able to see the room of people you are trying to video than to see minute details at 10x zoom (as most of my videoing will probably be indoors or close range rather than long range). Of course either deficiency can be made up for by add on optical lenses.

Just my opinion.

Hazza.

Cool. We need to get people reading this thread. There's a lot of good info here!

Bill

The difference between focal lengths is because of the CCD sizes. It changes the ratio for convert 35 mm equivalent. If they were two 35 mm cameras, there wouldn't be any differences. But as the ccd size are different, 35 mm equivalents are different. They have physically same zoom, but the chips gathering the light are different.

If you ask me, I prefer wider focal length.. This is what you'll need most of your shootings. i've seen comments saying 'too narrow even in wide angle' for the lens of trv 22. So i consider buying a wide lens adapter (x.75 perhaps) along with the camcorder.

The difference between focal lengths is because of the CCD sizes. It changes the ratio for convert 35 mm equivalent. If they were two 35 mm cameras, there wouldn't be any differences. But as the ccd size are different, 35 mm equivalents are different. They have physically same zoom, but the chips gathering the light are different.

If you ask me, I prefer wider focal length.. This is what you'll need most of your shootings. i've seen comments saying 'too narrow even in wide angle' for the lens of trv 22. So i consider buying a wide lens adapter (x.75 perhaps) along with the camcorder.

more about horizontal resolution (500 in trv22 vs 520 in trv33):

Lines of horizontal resolution are often confused with scan lines. The two are totally different things, be careful when shopping for equipment. Lines of horizontal resolution refers to visually resolvable vertical lines per picture height. In other words, it's measured by counting the number of vertical black and white lines that can be distinguished an area that is as wide as the picture is high. Lines of horizontal resolution applies both to television displays and to signal formats such as that produced by a DVD player. Since DVD has 720 horizontal pixels (on both NTSC and PAL discs), the horizontal resolution can be calculated by dividing 720 by 1.33 (for a 4:3 aspect ratio) to get 540 lines. On a 1.78 (16:9) display, you get 405 lines. In practice, most DVD players provide about 500 lines instead of 540 because of filtering and low-quality digital-to-analog converters. VHS has about 230 (172 widescreen) lines, broadcast TV has about 330 (248 widescreen), and laserdisc has about 425 (318 widescreen). Scan lines, on the other hand, measure resolution along the y axis. DVD produces 480 scan lines of active picture for NTSC and 576 for PAL. The NTSC standard has 525 total scan lines, but only 480 to 483 or so are visible. (The extra lines are black and are encoded with other information). Since all video formats (VHS, LD, broadcast, etc.) have the same number of scan lines, it's the horizontal resolution that makes the big difference in picture quality.

I understand what your saying about the lines of resotution versus scan lines, but I'm curious if you think the extra 20 lines that you get with the TRV33 is going to yeild a visually noticable difference?

well, I don't think so..