"Frame-grabs", from motion-video - stills would tell
you little about what I was showing...
(www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm)
As it is, the most annoying picture aspects of megapixel-CCD
one-chip camcorders in motion (of camera/subject) do not
show in the still frame-grabs taken from from the
motion-video footage... When the PC100 first appeared,
there was quite a bit written about these effects - but,
oddly, the worse effects in the newer cameras are rarely
mentioned by anyone but me... Maybe people just got
used to seeing them...? ;-)

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:13:46 +1200, Brian wrote:

>Thanks Neuman
>Are the pjotos you are talking about during your test, still pictures
>or frames from a movie using the TRV30 camera ?
>
>regards Brian

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:31:14 +1200, Brian
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've heard mixed options on the net about this camera (Sony
>>>DCRTRV30E). Some say that it is poor at recording in low light
>>>conditions. There is poor color in low light conditions and objects
>>>remain in the dark in a low lit room. I'm not certain if those people
>>>were talking about video recordings or still pictures.
>>>
>>>I'd be interested in hearing from owners of this camera.

>>[On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:35:27 GMT, "Timothy O'Connor"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Until someone like David Ruether does an indepth review of it, we wont
>>>know...]
>>
>>Hmmmm....;-)
>>I did do a "light" review of the TRV30, comparing it with
>>other Sony imaging types in bright light, medium-low
>>tungsten light, and very-low available-daylight, at:
>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
>>A few comments:
>>-- A local Victorian chapel I often shoot video and stills
>>in (1/60th at f2 1/2 with 800-speed film...) is too dark
>>for using the TRV30, but barely adequate for the PC9...
>>It is my reference "low-light" location... ;-)
>>-- The TRV900 is OK in this environment, but if the
>>TRV950 really has the same low light limit as the TRV30
>>(the specs say so...), it will not work for me.
>>-- The TRV30 picture is very sharp, with good color, but
>>in motion, the "cacophony" of moving "saw-tooth" edges,
>>"flapping" effects on scan-lines, and color noise in
>>smooth-tone areas even in bright light is VERY
>>distracting to me, and I often prefer the less sharp,
>>but smoother, "quieter" picture of the PC9 (or, by
>>FAR, the superior picture of the VX2000...;-).
>>-- It is hard to show in stills these annoying picture
>>artifacts, and judging from the few comments from others
>>on them (and from the growing number of commercial
>>programs on TV that show these effects), maybe others
>>are not as annoyed by them as I am...
>>BTW, I put up a list of 28 video picture characteristics,
>>with samples when I had them available, at:
>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm, perhaps
>>in an effort to establish standards for good images so
>>that video imagery may improve...? ;-)
>>David Ruether