Camcorder lens resolving power

[Wile_E]

I recently bought a small and cheap Mini-DV camcorder to use for vacations and family video (Canon ZR-500). Bought it mainly for it's true 16:9 mode(uses full width of the CCD sensor) and it's better low-light capability vs. other camcorders in that price range. In this review... http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-ZR500-Camcorder-Review.htm
they say that this camcorder only has a resolution of (477 x 280 / 16:9) and (363 x 274 / 4:3). That doesn't seem very high and actually those numbers are closer to what I expect of VHS material.

I would like to know why the resolution resolved is much less than what is stored on DV tape at (720x480)? Is it because of the quality of the lens? The CCD itself has 680K max pixels with 340K effective pixels in 4:3 and about 400K-450K in 16:9 mode. This is plenty of effective pixels for 16:9 720x480 = 345,600K. After reading a ton of mini-dv camcorder reviews on that website, it appears that no current consumer camcorder is capable of resolving the full 720x480 frame. Even the new HD 1080i camcorders coming out, like the Canon HV10, only resolves (631x691) and stores it as a 1920x1080i frame. I find this all very misleading to the consumer. How can they label these camcorders like the HV10, as HD 1080i, when it can only resolve much less information?

How much resolution am I really missing? Would I see a noticeable difference if I exchanged this camcorder for another that has more resolving power? I really wanted good low-light capability and good resolution. But it looks like you can't have both in the same camcorder. The higher-end model, the Canon Optura 50, has a little worse low-light capability.

Camcorderinfo uses Imatest Imaging quality evaluation software. Is this software to be trusted?

[jagabo]

http://www.videsignline.com/howto/sensorsoptics/189600793

Fully resolving 720x480 pixels would cause moire artifacts.

[edDV]

Good subject.

The prime issue is one CCD (sharing RGB) vs 3x CCD (345,600K pixels for each component).

Optical is a major issue as well. Consider that standard definition broadcast lenses sell for $10K to $30K and weigh alot. Compare that to 1/6" CCD and tiny plastic lenses.

Third is image processing electronics. What realtime filters can be applied to enhance the image?

[jagabo]

Optical is a major issue as well. Consider that standard definition broadcast lenses sell for $10K to $30K and weigh alot. Compare that to 1/6" CCD and tiny plastic lenses.

I don't think the lens is really an issue as far as video resolution is concerned. Consider still shots from camcorders with multi-megapixel CCDs. They're much clearer than video from the same camcorder. Or look at digital still cameras. Even really cheap ones can now resolve far more detail than any SD camcorder.

That's not to say a particular camcorder can't have a crappy lens.

[edDV]

Optical is a major issue as well. Consider that standard definition broadcast lenses sell for $10K to $30K and weigh alot. Compare that to 1/6" CCD and tiny plastic lenses.

I don't think the lens is really an issue as far as video resolution is concerned. Consider still shots from camcorders with multi-megapixel CCDs. They're much clearer than video from the same camcorder. Or look at digital still cameras. Even really cheap ones can now resolve far more detail than any SD camcorder.

That's not to say a particular camcorder can't have a crappy lens.

It depends how much of the budget goes to the lens but I'd agree the sensor is probably more important.

Nobody has ever claimed that 5 MegaPixel digital cameras optically resolve 2600x1900. They only spec the sensor.

[jagabo]

Nobody has ever claimed that 5 MegaPixel digital cameras optically resolve 2600x1900. They only spec the sensor.

No, but they resolve much more than 720x480.