>Neuman - Ruether
>news:3b524fad.5188654@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:24:14 GMT, "Paul Tauger"
>>
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
>> >news:3b4f41c5.12416824@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On 12 Jul 2001 15:29:09 -0700, Paul Rubin
>> >>
>> >> >David,
>> >> >
>> >> >I keep seeing repeated user reports that the TRV20 works better in low
>> >> >light than the TRV11/17. Logically that's somewhat surprising, since
>> >> >the CCD pixels are smaller, but it's hard to argue with actual
>> >> >observed experience.
>> >> >
>> >> >Any idea what's going on? Any comment?
>> >> Assuming the imaging is the same on the PC100, PC110,
>> >> and TRV-20 (I'm fairly sure that is true), then the
>> >> above is not correct, though one could be misled...
>> [rest below...]
>> >I spent a good hour a/bing (actually a/b/cing) a TRV11, TRV20 and TRV900
>in
>> >low light with output to a good video monitor. The TRV11 had decidedly
>> >poorer lowlight capability -- a fair amount of chroma noise and a harsh
>> >unnatural, almost orange image. The TRV900 had the best performance, no
>> >chroma noise that I could see, with a clean, well-balanced image. The
>TRV20
>> >was quite similar to the TRV900, except that it had some chroma noise,
>> >though I doubt whether it would be noticeable to a casual consumer.
>> >
>> >The differences between the 11 and the 20 were quite dramatic (note, too,
>> >that the 20 has superior optics to the 11, as well as a larger lens). I
>> >don't know whether these differences would carry over to TRV17 -- I don't
>> >know anything about it. I also have no idea what system is used in the
>> >PC-series. However, as I say, the TRV20 produces a markedly better
>image
>> >in low light than the TRV11.
>> As I tried to point out (but maybe not successfully...),
>> if you are talking about best "quality" of image at the
>> lowest-level point of the PC100/PC110/TRV20 specifically,
>> this occurs at +15db for the PC100(etc.). At that same
>> light level, the TRV11/TRV17/PC5 picture is not as good
>> in color (All these were with stabilizer *off* - were they
>> all either off or on when you did your checks? It does make
>> a difference.)
>They were off.
>> Once you drop below that point, though, the
>> PC100 color immediately disappears, but the TRV11 color
>> continues to be acceptable (and correctable in post), As
>> the light level reaches the lowest level for the TRV11, it
>> has past the lowest light level for the PC100, and the
>> picture is darker, with less recoverable information.
>> Therefore, I would consider the TRV11 to have better low
>> light extension - though at one specific light level,
>> the picture of the PC100 would be better...
>Perhaps we're talking apples and oranges. My concern is which machine can
>make the best usable image in low light. The TRV11 had long gone
>unacceptably grainy and orange before the TRV20 could no longer produce a
>decent image.
Our experience is different here...
Just as the lowest light level for good image for the
PC100 is reached (at +15db, wide-open, 1/60th second);
the TRV11 image color is a tad off (not orange), with grain
that is still smooth; and the PC-1 image is beginning to lose
color saturation and is showing some grain increase.
Reduce the light level a bit more, and the still-smooth
PC100 image has lost most of its color (uncorrectable); the
TRV-11 image is still reasonably smooth, with decent (and
correctable) color; the PC-1 has lost much of its color
(sometimes correctable, with an increase in grain size) and
the image is quite grainy. So, again, for best picture to a
very specific light level, without corrections, I would
agree with you - the PC100/PC110/TRV-20 is better. But
I have need foor a tiny camera with picture quality that does
not become unuseable suddenly at a specific light level -
one that can be "stretched" to operate in lower light,
if necessary. The slow shutter speeds spoil the image
worse than color and tone correction do, and the TRV11
operates acceptably well in a lower light level than
the PC100 (darn - I'd rather it was the other way 'round,
since it would have saved me money and trouble, and the
PC100 image is sharper, but it isn't, alas).
>When it is so dark that TRV20 can't produce an acceptable
>image, I switch into "night shot" mode. It may be just a personal
>preference, but I'd rather have a clean b&w image then the noisy, grainy and
>orange image produced by the 11. Perhaps the 11 is more sensitive at low
>light levels, but if the image it produces is so ugly as to be unusable,
>then I'd respectfully submit that it's lowlight sensitivity is irrelevant.
Learn to color and tone-correct in post...;-)
I agree, the NS-mode in B&W looks good with the PC100
(and the camera is MUCH more sensitive in this mode), but it is
hard to mix B&W with 3-4 other cameras which have color
images...;-)
>As an extreme example of what I'm talking about, take a look at the ZR-10,
>which displays so much video noise in low light as to useless.
Many cameras do - but it depends on the use whether
or not the image (corrected) is useless...
>> >> I have shot the PC100, PC-1, and TRV-11 side-by-side
>> >> in the same few low-light situations (all with
>> >> stabilizers off), since I am looking for the best
>> >> small Sony one-chipper tiny camera for use on a mic
>> >> stand or pole for shooting close-in at wedding
>> >> ceremonies (which are often held in rather dim
>> >> locations...;-). (I may put frame-grabs from these
>> >> tests in a review article on my web page at some
>> >> point.) The PC100 color holds up well until +15db,
>> >> then suddenly dies as the camera goes toward +18,
>> >> where it is essentially monochrome; the color of
>> >> the TRV-11 gets a little weird around +15db, but
>> >> remains acceptable even at +18db ("grain" for
>> >> both is surprisingly minimal even at +18db); the
>> >> sensitivity of the TRV-11 is a bit higher than
>> >> that of the PC-100, and side-by-side, there is more
>> >> "detail-in-the-murk" with the TRV-11 when these
>> >> are shot in levels below their limits, and more
>> >> info can be recovered from the TRV-11 image with
>> >> filtering for both color and detail; when the
>> >> light level just rises to the +15db gain point for
>> >> the PC100, its image looks a bit better than the
>> >> TRV-11 image... Thus, the confusion...;-)
>> >> The PC-1 produces an acceptable (though "grainy")
>> >> image at a light level lower than the PC-100
>> >> (which I bought to replace it - and then found it
>> >> was not useable in a chapel I often shoot in, and
>> >> in which the PC-1 produces a decent picture - and
>> >> the TRV-11 maybe a little bit better picture
>> >> [smoother, but a little less sharp - it is all
>> >> trade-offs with camcorders, with little outright
>> >> "gravy", alas...]). Sony rates the TRV-11 for
>> >> 5-lux minimum, the PC-100 for 7, as I recall, and
>> >> this is not too far from what I found, relatively
>> >> speaking... 'Course, the TRV-900 runs rings around
>> >> these in low light (every where else, too...), and
>> >> in turn, the VX-2000 runs rings around the TRV-900.
>> >> But, even so, the pictures from all these cameras
>> >> can be mixed after adjusting color/contrast/brightness
>> >> in post, assuming that none was used below its
>> >> decent-color point...