
I recently picked up the Sony
DCR-PC100 camera through a friend from Japan. I own the Sony
TVR9 also but just like my digital still cameras, I found that because the
TVR9 is not small enough to fit in my pocket I almost never used it.
By that I mean that I've owned many digital still cameras and it turns out
of if it's not small enough to fit in my pocket I won't use it.
At the time I purchased the TVR9 the 2 things that made me choose it over
the DCR-PC1 which was the latest small video camera from Sony at the time.
(1) the TVR9 had nightvision mode which allows you to see
in the dark using infrared light. It sounds like a cool idea but for
the most part it's really just a gadget and is not a good reason to buy a
camera unless you really have a use for it. (2) was that the TVR9 had video inputs so I could record
video games directly which could be important for my work. But, like
I said as it turned out I didn't use the camera at all because of it's
size.
So, recently I was making plans for a vacation and I decided I'd look
into getting a small video camera and I found out Sony had this new model,
the DCR-PC100. At the time of this writing it is not available in
the United States yet.
What does it do that's so cool? Well unlike most digital consumer
video cameras it's got a over 1megapixels on it's CCD. I'm guessing
that's about 3 times more than most video cameras. I'm not sure
how that translates into the image on the video tape. It would seem
to me that as it's using DIGITAL VIDEO it would have to store the image in
a standard resolution. But, the camera was one other feature that definitely
does use 1megapixels and
that is the ability to take still image shots onto Sony Memory Sticks.
I never understood why Sony had not come out with a digital still
camera that is a merger of their small video cameras and their digital
still technology. They had nifty digital video cameras like the
DCR-PC1 with 10x optical zoom and upto 6.5 hours battery life. All
they needed to do was take OUT the video parts and put in digital still
camera parts and they'd have something that beats the pants off everything
in the market. It would be small, have a tilt screen, 10x optical
zoom, 6+ hour battery life. In short it would kick butt.
Well the DCR-PC10 almost does that. I say almost because it's not
really a digital still camera. It doesn't have all the features for setup
up a still shot that a digital still camera would have. It's also
about a year behind in terms of resolution. Current digital still
cameras all have 2 megapixel CCDs. This camera only has half as many
pixels.
Still, I needed a video camera and the still capability seemed pretty
cool so I got one.
Here are some random pictures I took as soon as I received the
camera. Click on any picture to see the original as taken off the
memory card from the camera.

These are a couple of stuffed toys on top of my monitor at work.
Default settings

This is one of my co-workers, Bruce. He is standing about 12 feet
away and I'm zoomed in to see is face. We were indoors in a room with
some reflected sunlight

This is a singer out on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica.
I manually adjusted the brightness pretty high in order to see the details
on his face. Without adjusting the brightness his face became too
dark to see. If you look at the large image you will see a magenta
ghost around much of the image. I guess I would have to assume this
has to do with adjusting the brightness much to high for the bright
background

Here is picture from the same place but zoomed all the way out so you can
get an idea of where I was standing and this is with the brightness set to
back to the default auto-adjust mode.

Here are some palm trees. This was an attempt to get a little
detail from zooming.

This is also a zoomed picture of one of the flags hanging over the
promenade.

These are my friends Evan and Danny. I included this picture just as your average "snapshot" type of
picture. This was taken in the entrance to the local Toys R Us and
shows the "standie" for the game we had just shipped. CTR:
Crash Team Racing.

This again is a zoomed in picture of a crosswalk sign. Again I had
to manually adjust the brightness fairly high because of the bright background
and again I got an unacceptable blurry purple glow.
I think the verdict is still out on whether or not this is a great
camera. I'll be taking it on vacation in the next few months so I'll
post more pictures from this camera in the following months. For now
though it's clear it's not going to replace my DSC-F55K for still shots.
Some questions I've been asked about this camera.
Q: Do I like it.
A: Yes. As a video camera I like it. As a still camera I'm
going to stick with real still cameras. I recently got a Sony
DSC-F505K which takes much much better still pictures
Q: Which battery to get?
A: I have both the smallest and the largest but I pretty much find that
I only use the smallest. It really depends and how you are going to
use the camera. I find that I rarely fill a tape on one outting.
One tape is 60 minutes in SP. The small battery lasts about 120
minutes. Still I carry the large one just in case I need it.
Q: How do I get the still pictures into my computer?
A: I have a laptop computer and so I purchased the Memory Stick PCMCIA
adapter. It's a standard adapter so Windows 95/98 comes with
drivers for it to work (ie, no drivers come with the adapter). As
far as the computer is concerned it's exactly the same as a CompactFlash
adapter so I'm assuming it would work on a Mac too. I also have a
USB card reader at work. The Antec Photochute 3. It works fine
there too. There is also a Floppy Adapter for the Memory
Stick. It is PC only at the moment.
Q: Have I edited video digitally and what do I need to edit
A: Yes, I have done this.
Under Windows 98 you probably have alot more options. As I run Windows
NT I had to go with more expensive options. I purchased the DPS Spark
(about $500) from Safe Harbor (a web
mail order place) if I was to do it again I think I would buy the Pinnacle
Systems DV300. It's the same hardware (both systems use the Adaptec 8945)
but the DV300 comes with a full copy of Adobe Premier. The DPS Spark comes
with their proprietary software. Note: Safe Harbor does not take
returns for incompatibility according to their website.
After that I had to get a FAST scsi drive. Your hard drive has to allow
writing of I think at least 4meg per second or it will not be able to keep
up with the data coming out of the camera. I got my drive from Buy.com.
Here's the number from the order.
9.1GB SCSI ULTRA2 WIDE LVD LP ULTRASTAR 10KRPM 80PIN 18LZX
It's a 10gig drive. 10gig is enough space for about 50 minutes of
video. Note that to EDIT video you need space for editing so you can
probably only edit about 25 minutes of video on a 10 gig drive. Also note
that I needed an 80pin to 68pin adapter to connect that drive to the DPS
Spark. I got the adapter at Fry's, a local computer store. One thing
about hard drives. Most video editing hardware companies will
recommend Seagate hard drives. I will personally NEVER buy Seagate
ever again. One time one of their drives died on me. Most hard
drive companies will ship you a replacement overnight if you cover it with
a credit card. Seagate would NOT. As such I could not
use my computer for an entire month as I waited for them to fix my drive.
In other words I was OUT OF BUSINESS FOR ONE MONTH BECAUSE OF
SEAGATE. DO NOT BUY SEAGATE!
You will also need some books on editing for CD. I personally captured
some video and put it on a CD but then I found that some of my friends PCs
were not fast enough to play back the video (I made it kind of large). I'm
sure there are some books or websites that go over what formats,
compression types, data rates, etc are best for CD-ROM.
I know that for Windows 98 there are I-Link/1394 cards that are less
than $100 but I don't know what software they come with or if they are
actually fast enough to capture the video. I would assume that even if you
go with one of the cheaper cards you will still need a faster hard drive.
Also, do not get the Adaptec 8920. It's "for still captures
only" Personally I think it's the same hardware that's on the
8945 but Adaptec will not support video capture on that board even if it
does seem to work.
Well I've made my decision about the PC100. As a VIDEO camera I
have no complaints. It's been great. It's small, easy to
use. As a DIGITAL video camera it's great. I've had no
problems pulling video into my computer, editing it and putting it back on
tape. But, as for it's use as a still camera it's complete
CRAP. I'm pretty angry about this. Sony should have done better.
I've owned quite a few digital still cameras. Starting with the
original Apple Quicktake upto the Sony
DSC-F505 and inbetween the Sony DSC-F1, Kodak
210, Epson 600, Nikon Coolpix 900, and the Sony
DSC-F55k.
Of all those cameras the PC100 is the by far the worst of the bunch
taking the worst pictures. I print quite a few of my pictures for
various projects and the results from the PC100 are so bad as to be
unusable. Here's an example
Sony DCR-PC100 |
Sony DSC-F505 |
click on either pictures for the full
size version taken directly from the camera.
It may not be clear what's wrong with the PC100 picture from these
small thumbnails. If you look at the full size pictures you'll see
lots of blotchiness in the PC100 picture. I don't know whether or
not this blotchiness comes from a bad CCD (ie, bad electronics) or bad
software (ie, the compressor in the PC100 is bad) What's even
stranger is that the PC100 file is 26K LARGER than the F505 picture
and yet the F505 pictures has almost twice as many pixels. 1600x1200
vs 1152x864
This is particularly noticeable in the blue channel of the picture.
Sony DCR-PC100 |
Sony DSC-F505 |
All that blotchiness gets even more exaggerated in printouts.
This is pretty upsetting especially since the DSC-F505 does so
well. Both products are made by Sony. You'd think they'd just
put the compression software from their other digital still cameras into
the PC100.
For me this basically makes the PC100 useless as a still camera.
That brings up the question, is this camera worth the extra price.
For example the Canon
Elura is alot cheaper. $1250 vs $2000 The Canon does not
have the still picture option but if that option is useless then what's
the point of paying an extra $750 for it. For that price you can buy
most of the current still cameras out there and can get better pictures at
a higher resolution. Maybe Sony will come out with a firmware
upgrade to fix the compression problems? I hope so.