"Eric Tetz" <erictetz@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:65b990d1.0307092103.7d77ce67@posting.google.com...

> David Ruether wrote:

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > > I'm considering doing the same thing, upgrading to VX2000 from the TRV900.

> > > How do you feel the images compare in *good* light?

> >

> > You can find comparison images between these and others at:

> > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm and

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

> > (BTW, ignor the hit-counters - they were reset recently...;-)

>

> I've read those pages too many times to count. Thank you for creating

> them. :)

>

> I'm always interested in other opinions, though, especially from a

> long time TRV900 user who just made the switch.

Another local videographer just made the switch, and has commented on

the better low light image of the VX2000 (less "grain", sharper image,

better blacks [but with lower contrast, giving better highlight detail]).

>I love my camera, but

> no matter how excited I get about the images I capture, I'm humbled

> the second I turn on any television program. Will the VX2000 get me

> any close to *that*, or is the difference between the VX2000 and the

> TRV900 relatively minor?

It is relatively subtle (lower contrast, less noise, better greens, slightly

sharper [especially at wide stops], a tad less motion-artifacting). The

broadcast stuff is most often lower-compression digital video (with less

motion-artifacting, and overall smoother and "quieter" image), the best

analogue video (same advantages), or 35mm film - and some now is

HDTV. In SD, with careful shooting and editing, and with a minimal

number of image-degrading analogue stages before broadcast, the

best Mini-DV can look almost as good as the best SD broadcast TV,

short 35mm/70mm//HDTV-shot original material...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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

Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com, too...!