> > "GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote in message

> > news:105j5j762t8lt76@corp.supernews.com...

>

> > > OK, I can't actually examine either one (nobody around here sells

> either),

> > > but which is the smarter buy: a new PV-D953 or a used clean,

> good-condition

> > > Sony TRV900? They cost about the same.

> > >

> > > Principle interest is in very good quality video under good light

> > > (outdoors). No interest in still images (have a Canon G2 and S400 for

> that).

> > >

> > > I have an old top-of-the line Sony Hi8 (something-or-other 81 model, as

> I

> > > recall) that I want to upgrade from to get MUCH better video quality.

> Can't

> > > stand the poor resolution of the old Sony. My goal would be the

> equivalent

> > > image quality that you get from a commercial DVD played on a 50"

> > > non-progressive rear-projector TV set. In other words, not perfect, but

> very

> > > good.

> > >

> > > Is this reasonable and would the video quality between the two cameras

> be

> > > similar? Or how different?

> > A commercial DVD, though a medium with lower

> > maximum available resolution than available from Mini-DV,

> > will almost always look better (they spend a LOT more

> > money on production costs and gear, and better source

> > material will almost always win, regardless of the presentation

> > medium's limitations - heck, even a good commercial

> > VHS tape played back on a good deck will look better

> > than so-so DV...! ;-). Within DV camcorders, the

> > variables are so great that no two models, even if they

> > appear to have similar specs, will produce equal-looking

> > images (and some conditions will make them look

> > VERY different - see for more on this:

> > www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm).

> > Add to this the fact that some people just don't see

> > image faults that drive others "up the wall", and you can

> > see that making a definitive recommendation is generally

> > impossible. This does not prevent me from telling

> > people what is important for me, what I've found in

> > comparisons, and what I prefer, based on my opinions

> > and experience. In this case, I'm not familiar enough

> > with the 953 to tell you specifics, but in general, I've

> > preferred the image quality of the TRV900 (not perfect!)

> > to that of the small 3-CCD Panasonics (especially the

> > ones with tiny CCDs). These sites may be useful, for more:

> > http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html

> > http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au

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

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

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

> > --

> > David Ruether

> > d_ruether@hotmail.com

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

"GRL" <GLitwinski@CHARTERMI.COM> wrote in message

news:105khhtrqiaa65a@corp.supernews.com...

>

> What drives me nuts about my old (~1998) TRV81 is that even though it is

> supposed to be equivalent to S-VHS, the resolution is such that when you

> shoot video on a bright day of "touristy" subjects (e.g. a park in London)

> things like lawns show up as just green blurs with no indication of any

> grass blades. I'm not talking in the distance either. I mean like 10-20 feet

> away. I want a LOT more resolution than that. I can live with less than

> perfect color, but the blurriness that comes with poor resolution is

> unacceptable.

> - GRL

Toward the end of the Hi-8 run, as Mini-DV was coming in,

Hi-8 quality was down-graded to encourage the purchase of

the new technology (this appears to be happening now with

SD TVs, too - ain't marrketing gran'?...;-). If you want to see

how good Hi-8 can be, try a Sony TR700 or VX3.

Unfortunately, some of the Mini-DV marketing "hype" leads

people to believe that this new medium is better than it generally

is, though at the low end, the best models are OK, and near

the top, they are fairly good - though don't expect miracles.

With the best Mini-DV gear, under good conditions, with a

sharp display (and assuming the zoom at the "wide" end,

with no lens converter on it), you should see OK grass texture,

but no fine detail. Look here at the bright-light samples of

the VX2000 (or the TRV30, if you are willing to accept

excessive motion-artifacting) to get an idea of about the best

you can expect for resolution in this medium:

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

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

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