On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:35:41 -0500, xyz <xyznospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:26:50 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)

>wrote:

>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:58:59 -0500, xyz

>><xyznospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>[...]

>>>I still wish someone could confirm whether the TRV25/27 is at least on

>>>par with the old TRV17 for low-light noise. I was satisfied with the

>>>TRV17s low-light noise. If the TRV25/27 is at least the same, I'm

>>>happy.

>>[...]

>>It is better, as I have often pointed out - the "grain"

>>appears finer and smoother, though the low-light limit

>>is not quite as great...

>Then that takes care of my noise concerns as I was satisfied with the

>TRV17's low-light video. Did you actually see the low-light video

>from the TRv25 or 27?

From the TRV740, which uses the same chip...

>While searching thsi newsgroup on google, I saw a video capture from a

>TRV25 and older camcorder (forget which one). I see where the TRV25

>scene was much darker (he probably didn't adjust the exposure up) even

>with a lamp and some window light.

Yes. As I said, "- the 'grain' appears finer and smoother,

though the low-light limit is not quite as great...". You

trade lowest-light image quality for range with the TRV25

vs. the TRV18 (and the bright-light image of the TRV25

[and similar] is sharper than it is for the TRV18 [and

similar], though you may also see more motion-artifacting

with the sharper-imaged higher-pixel-count models). I

have often recommended the "good-average/un-annoying"

TRV18 (etc.) over the "sharper/smoother" TRV25 (etc.)

for those into "casual" shooting - the others can look

better with careful use, but they can also look worse

under contrasty lighting or subject conditions...

(see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm

and www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm for

more on this...).