On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 00:27:56 -0800 (PST), bigrocketman3@webtv.net (Steve McDonald) wrote:

> The remarks I made that were quoted by Suzie about the Sony TR700

>Hi-8 camcorder were written several years ago. Some of the comparisons

>I made then to DV camcorders in general, are a bit outdated. However, I

>suspect that no other responder to this thread, other than David R., has

>ever used a Sony TR700. I can't argue about the obvious limitations of

>its analog Hi-8 recorder, but its camera section is far better than most

>people might imagine. Even from Hi-8 tape, there were times when

>experienced videomakers assumed they were looking at footage from a

>3-CCD camera when I showed what I had shot with mine. I've re-recorded

>older footage from my TR700 on Digital8 and the TBC made the playback

>look even better. Apparently, another poster was confusing this model

>with the TR7000, from the first generation of Digital8 camcorders. This

>latter camera has only 290K active CCD pixels, compared to the 379K of

>the TR700.

>

> It did come from the factory adjusted just a bit hot on the reds,

>but I can't find other fault with it and it is very good in low light.

>The figures of 470 lines of camera-direct resolution and 410 lines in

>playback are genuine. The high performance of the signal processer with

>which they blessed this model, is as important as that of its CCD in

>producing this level of resolution and overall quality in its image.

>I've tested it myself and it does as well as the Berger-Braithwaite lab

>stated in the July, 1994 issue of Video Magazine. If you have access

>to old issues in a library, check it out. If you can find a working

>TR700, you might get a lot for your money.

>

> Of course, I usually shoot only with digital camcorders nowadays,

>but if I was restricted to just the use of my TR700, I would not feel

>badly handicapped. I would bump up the TR700's 1st-generation Hi-8

>footage, through a TBC, to a digital editing format. With that

>procedure, I could fool most people into thinking it was shot on a

>digital camcorder. When I bought it in 1995, it was just to have a

>small, "throwaway" backup for my big Beta and Canon L1. However, after

>I had used it once, the big, expensive cameras mostly stayed in the

>closet. I used it for 90% of my shooting, until I went digital. Did I

>mention that its built-in mike gives excellent fidelity, even with

>music? And, that it's optical image stabilizer works quite well?

I agree with all of this. The TRV700 (and the

non-stabilized, cheaper/smaller TRV200) were gems

I missed when they first came out (while I was on

my way to getting a Canon L1 system...;-) It

wasn't until I bought the Sony 700 used later

(and borrowed a 200 and 400 to try) that I realized

my mistake...;-) BTW, the 400 of the time was not

in the same class if the stabilizer was engaged,

since it robbed CCD area and pixels from the

image...

>Steve McDonald

>P.S. Do you think that the archives will keep spitting back everything

>you put on the Web, forever? You have to be careful about what you say.

Yes. I've been writing since '96, I think (...! ;-),

(and I've preserved these posts at:

www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/posts - needs to be updated

with recent posts, though...) - but there can be

some scary moments reading these...! ;-)