JVC GR-D72 Still Pic Ability

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I was wondering if anyone has a sample photo from the JVC GR-D72 that
they could put on the internet somewhere? After searching the internet,
I can't find a single sample shot (that probably should tell me
something...). I know the quality of the stills from camcorders are not
good, but am wondering how bad they are? Are they "toy" quality or do
they actually have some real life potential? I am debating whether to
get the GR-D33 or GRD-72 and it seems that the two main differences are
the 72 has still picture ability and the 72 has an analog input. I
already have a canopus ADVC for analog to digital conversion, so am
wondering if this still picture thing is even worth having. In the next
4 months, I will be purchasing another nice digital camera since my
older Kodak dx4330 was stolen when some jerk broke into my house and
took all my nifty small electronics...grrrr.

Thanks for any information,
Andrew V. Romero
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 30 May 2004 19:44:56 -0700, "Andrew V. Romero"
<rrstudio2@icqmail.com> wrote:

>I was wondering if anyone has a sample photo from the JVC GR-D72 that
>they could put on the internet somewhere? After searching the internet,
>I can't find a single sample shot (that probably should tell me
>something...). I know the quality of the stills from camcorders are not
>good, but am wondering how bad they are? Are they "toy" quality or do
>they actually have some real life potential? I am debating whether to
>get the GR-D33 or GRD-72 and it seems that the two main differences are
>the 72 has still picture ability and the 72 has an analog input. I
>already have a canopus ADVC for analog to digital conversion, so am
>wondering if this still picture thing is even worth having. In the next
>4 months, I will be purchasing another nice digital camera since my
>older Kodak dx4330 was stolen when some jerk broke into my house and
>took all my nifty small electronics...grrrr.

Most people probably don't bother putting up sample shots of
camcorder still pics. However, its resolution is 1024x768, which is
less than one megapixel. I feel that camcorder stills are primarily a
way to avoid carrying a digital still camera around. Even a very
cheap still camera will blow away the quality of most camcorder
stills, and this one has less resolution than many camcorders out
there (for stills, for video it is just fine -- video res stills at
640x480 are all you need for video work anyway).

I do use the still capability in my camcorder, to take higher res
than video snapshots of scenes, and the quality is OK for on-screen
work. One thing where video has an edge is in the camera zoom -- you
generally can zoom in much more than with a still cam, and also, the
LCD tends to be bigger so it is easier to see details. But the
tradeoff is in the image details -- the camcorder was designed to take
moving pictures, not stills, and it isn't optimized for still work.

2-4 megapixel still cameras are pretty cheap now, the price
difference between the cheaper camcorder (with similar video stats)
and the one with stills is enough to pay for a good chunk of that
still cam's price.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>