On Wed, 15 May 2002 23:12:06 -0400, "Dr. Judith Mazza" wrote:

>Thank you for your response. I check out the images on your website. Thank
>you.
>
>I am familiar with the TRV-900 and perhaps that would have been the best of
>all. It is a mystery to me why the manufacturers don't think people would
>be using these camcorders in normal ambient lighting.

In a balance of the "preferences" of buyers, compactness
and high pixel-count win; low-light range doesn't (and
the TRV900 replacement is smaller and lighter - and with
a poor 7-lux minimum rating, alas...). It may be worth
it to look for a TRV900.

>Do you know of any camcorders that will be coming out that would have both
>compact size and better light sensitivity?

No. The trend is in the direction of smaller chips and
pixel sizes, resulting in lower sensitivity.

>"Neuman - Ruether" wrote in message
>news:3ce30ebe.25063162@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Wed, 15 May 2002 16:03:58 -0400, "Dr. Judith Mazza"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I see that many of the Sony camcorders have their minimum lux rating as 7
>> >(unless using Nightshot). How well does this work out in normal ambient
>room
>> >lighting?

>> In a bright room, a Sony 7-lux rating is OK, but in a normal
>> room illuminated at night with just a couple of lamps, it
>> would be inadequate except quite close to a reasonably
>> bright lamp. BTW, the Sony *imaging types* (which include
>> one 7-lux rated type) are compared in three different
>> lighing conditions, with frame-grabs, at:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm

>> >I currently have a Sony Hi-8 camera which has a minumum lux of 3 and from
>> >time to time I have needed to adjust the exposure when I am indoors. One
>of
>> >my main uses for such a camera is when I do genealogy interviews of
>> >relatives...they are often elderly and indoors, so this feature is an
>> >important one.

>> It is hard to find one-CCD Mini-DV camcorders that produce
>> both high image quality, and also have good low-light
>> range. The TRV-900 3-CCD model was a good alternative
>> (around $1500), since its low-light range was very good.
>> It has been discontinued, though... If the 3-lux Hi-8
>> was marginal, the 7-lux Mini-DV would not do without
>> dropping the shutter speed to 1/15th, turning off the
>> stabilizer, and using a trick with manual exposure to
>> restore color if you are at maximum gain. Alternative:
>> add light (large, to the side works well), or use the
>> "nightshot" mode (with B&W, to lose the "toothpaste
>> green" IR color), but this results in odd skin tones
>> and eye-appearance due to the infrared...

>> >Of course I also would have liked something the size of the new Sony
>Micro
>> >DV camcorders, but realize there are other problems with those.

>> Yes! If this is attractive, though, look at the small Sony
>> PC9 (or cheaper TRV17/18), since its picture is OK and its
>> low-light range is greater than most others. With lighting
>> added, the results can be good (though if you are adding
>> enough lighting, the megapixel camera images can be better).