Th' answer, o' course, is t' switch t' VX2000s...!;-)
(I just bought my third...). I use the TRV900s for
"extras" (along with some 1-chippers, if the light
is good enough, and if the cutaways to them will be
short enough to get away with this [with heavy
processing in post...;-]). I agree with what you said
(the 900 picture also needs considerable adjusting
in post as the light levels go down - and the AF
also gets "iffy" with it in low light...).
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 05:16:11 +1100, "Hughy"
<antispam@spamkiller.net> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>Your post sounds pretty good to me. Mish mash of comments below:
>
>I've never tried to use the TRV-900 and XL1 in
"ultimate" low light side by
>side, basically at 18dB gain (TRV-900) the picture is
too noisy for
>weddings, or indeed for most commercial purposes. By that time I've gone
>for the light kit (providing the bride is happy with
this). The XL1 is
>*relatively speaking* still not unduly noisy at +12
dB. No doubt too, that
>beyond "commercial" light levels the TRV still
produces an image that for
>many would be sufficient. Also no doubt about the softer picture from the
>XL1 - *especially* on wide, our cam defied every attempt
by Canon to fix the
>backfocus - we gave up in the end. Then the cavalry arrived (in the shape
>of the DVStorm).
It's easy and quick to put a Storm sharp filter on *every*
>XL1 wide shot (around default 8 setting, but can go up
to 12 - 14 on the
>DVStorm sharp filter scale) and quite a sprinkling of
shots in a bit closer
>too. But not
good from a noise viewpoint. The TRV is
as sharp as a tack -
>never need a sharp filter in post! For concerts, it's
performance is more
>than the equal of the XL1 (lighting is normally high
enough to be running
>around f5.6 or better, low light only becomes an issue
in "mood" dance
>sequences - rare in jazz ballet or tap, but a little
more common in
>classical).
>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
>news:3e31d1f2.6326142@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>> I suspect that if both cameras were
>> shooting the same thing nearly exactly, with
brightnesses
>> equalized, and with both operating with gain near
"0", that
>> compression differences (though smaller...) would
*still*
>> show and still favor the XL-1 (!) - in many
circumstances,
>> the XL-1 picture is noticeably less sharp than that
of the
>> TRV900, resulting in less data to compress...;-)
>Agreed.
>
>I have no experience or knowledge of the XL1s, save
reading the odd post
>that some might think suggests not a great deal has
changed.
>Regards,
>Hughy.