On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 18:12:35 GMT, Jason wrote:

>I have been using my TRV30 now for a few months and would like to share
>my experience so far. All in all, I am a disappointed with the quality of
>video produced by this camera. There appears to be a pretty small
>window of recording conditions that result in really good video- outdoor
>sunny day without direct sunlight and uniform brightness across the
>scene. Unfortunately for me I rarely record in those conditions. I'm
>usually recording an indoor birthday party, or an indoor wedding, or
>outdoors when it's really sunny. Here are the kinds of problems I've
>seen:

Oddly, your "problems" didn't match mine...;-)
In general, one-CCD, and particularly megapixel
1-CCD digital cameras have some limitations
(good as their sharpness and color are) compared
with good 3-CCD models, or even good 1-CCD
lower-pixel-count models, notably: excessive
spurious "activity" in fine-detail areas with
motion, and limited low-light range... A "cure"
for the TRV30 in particular: use the "portrait"
mode - it softens the picture slightly (reducing
artifacting), and improves color in low-light.

>Indoor quality- just plain bad. Very grainy video, neutral colors.

Add light; use "manual" and move the exposure
one notch away from maximum; use "portrait" mode;
use "shutter 1" or "2"; switch to "night shot"
and "B&W" modes for greater sensitivity (with a
black and white picture).

>I've tried playing around with the settings and I can get some
>improvements in color, but in general I'm not satisfied with the
>results.
>
>Outdoor sunny- I recently brought the camera to the beach. The bright
>sun and the bright sand caused the people to come out really dark unless
>I zoomed in really close. I wonder if a hood would alleviate this
>problem?

Use "sand and snow" mode; use manual exposure (though
good exposure is hard to judge with this camera's
viewfinders - you will need to go with experience...).

>Stills- Generally poor quality. My $150 HP Photosmart 215 (bottom of
>the line 1.3MP) takes better stills than this, especially indoors. The
>indoor graininess seems to be amplified when taking stills.

The still feature of video cameras is useful only
for web use, and only in 640x480 resolution (above
that, and noise is excessive). The requirements for
video CCDs and still-camera CCDs are different...

>If the conditions are right, however, the video really does look superb.
>Very crisp, vibrant colors. But like I mentioned, I'm rarely in those
>conditions, so I'm stuck with adequate video. For a $1400 camera, it's
>very disappointing. I probably should have done a bit more research
>before buying this camera.

For casual use, I generally recommend lower pixel-count
1-chippers for their more generally pleasant picture and
slightly greater low light range, though their color and
resolution is also a bit lower... See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
Used with a polarizer in daylight (adjusted for greatest
color saturation at the angle you are shooting at), even
the TRV18 can produce nice-looking video with good color,
and the price is lower. I also used to recommend that people
thinking of spending $1400 on a 1-chipper consider spending
a little more for the 3-chip TRV900 (now discontinued) for
its better picture in all lighting conditions, but
especially in low light (but did they listen?!?! ;-).