"xyz" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4cdu00ps1an9lhpb74abcbfj66m9ql0kef@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:59:53 GMT, "David Ruether"

> <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> >"xyz" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9hsrvvcnu9qq0ob9v4k2gforlg02cs5a5c@4ax.com...

> >> I wonder how the new Sony mini-dv DCR-HC85 with the bigger 1/3.6 inch

> >> CCD and 2110k pixel gross / 1,080k pixel actual for video compares to

> >> the TRV22 for low-light? I was thinking about getting the TRV22 but

> >> the new DCR-HC85 seems to be the best of both worlds (attributes of

> >> both the TRV-38 and TRV22 in one...even though the LUX rating is

> >> higher at 7 LUX compared to the TRV22)

> >I have not tried this camera - but it is interesting (Sony seems to

> >have reduced the annoying motion-effects in the TRV33 compared

> >with earlier megapixel+ 1-CCD cameras, so mebbe the HC85

> >combines better sharpness and color with good motion-characteristics

> >for a 1-chipper?). Sony is pretty consistent, though, within their

> >video line with lux ratings, so I expect the new camera to fare

> >worse in low light than the TRV11/17/18/19/22/PC9 - and it

> >has the same lux rating as other cameras I've used that are not usable

> >in low light, like the TRV30, TRV950, etc. BTW, the TRV22/etc.

> >tend to give a proper exposure in good light, but be a tad

> >underexposed in low light - not a bad choice, and not hard to correct...

>> -- DR

> I hear you. Even though the CCD is bigger, the LUX rating can be

> relied on as Sony states it.

>

> I've had my D8 TRV525 for a few years now and the video quality just

> doesn't stand up anymore. Perhaps I'm more critical or discerning

> now. I think I should see better image quality with the TRV22 over

> the older D8 TRV525.

Maybe not. While it's likely the lens is a bit better, the other

imaging parts may be roughly similar. The higher pixel count

models will have an image that looks sharper, the color will

look a bit better, and tonality *may* be a tad better, but

these may come at the price of reduced low-light range and

with some possibility of greater motion-artifacting...

> If the TRV22 is a "tad underexposed in low light" how would the TRV33

> do under similar circumstances to the image from the TRV22 "even a tad

> underexposed"?

???? Not sure what you mean...

Under circumstances where both are within their exposure ranges,

the 33 is likely to give more "correct"-looking exposures in both

fairly low and bright light. Except for the more restricted low-light

range (and for some weird effects with rock walls), I really like the

Sony TRV25/27/33/38/etc. imager for a 1-CCD camcorder...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com