On 11 Mar 2003 20:33:12 -0800, gpapaioa@ford.com (George) wrote:

>Considering that I am looking for an extra back-up camera that is good

>in lo-light situations, I may look no further than the JVC DV3000u. I

>like the fact that it has a larger 1/3.6" CCD and 540 lines rez and

>bad either.

The "540" lines is the medium limit, not what the

camera can actually put on tape - only the few very

highest-resolution small camcorders approach this

figure on tape (under optimum conditions...), but

none can equal this number, regardless of cost,

CCD-size, quality of lens, etc... It is advertising

hype to indicate that this is the resolution any

small camera actually achieves on tape (though some,

like the Sony TRV30 and variants, come close...).

Also, I would not call 1/3.6" "large", or even

significantly larger than the many 1/4" CCDs around...

BTW, the frame-grabs at this site can be useful,

and several camcorders look better than the JVCs

with these: http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html.

>I hear it is

>better that the TRV950 in lo-light. Any opinions/experences out

>there? It is surely one of the best looking miniDV camera's ever.

Well.....;-)

As for the TRV950, it is not very sensitive - but the

3-CCDs do permit reasonable processing for lightening

the image successfully, if necessary...

>I am not too excited about the low cost 3CCD options out there with

>tiny CCD (1/6", 1/4.7", etc.) that demand lotsa light.

The 1/6th" models do have VERY restricted low-light

range, but the 1/4.7" 3-CCD model is not as bad as these...

>Give me a big

>single CCD and the small degredation in color reproduction that goes

>with it any day over 3 tiny ones - not too mention half the cost.

Then you are not familiar with the failings of 1-CCD

images compared with 3-CCD (highlight "burnout",

lowered color saturation, higher motion artifacting,

and [with DV] lower low-light range). For more, see:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.