JVC GR-D72 Still Pic Ability

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Andrew V. Romero, May 31, 2004.

  1. 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
     
    Andrew V. Romero, May 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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 S. Jones, Jun 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.