On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:00:13 -0700, "John Peterson"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3c03f282.3213737@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:49:22 -0700, "John Peterson"
>>
>> >"Neuman - Ruether"
>> >news:3c039bca.3119286@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:07:08 -0700, "John Peterson"
>> >>
>> >> >I'm a little concerned with the faint light vertical lines in bright
>> >light
>> >> >and high contrast images. They're very noticeable. Of the two times
>> >that
>> >> >I've used the camera, both times have this syndrome. I'm wondering if
>> >maybe
>> >> >the TRV900 might mitigate some of these issues for just a few dollars
>> >more?
>> >> Yes - the TRV900 does not use the same chips, and does not
>> >> show this problem (other than diffraction from the diaphragm
>> >> blades at small stops - makes a "star"...).
>> >>
>> >> >I wish Sony would come out with a *new* state of the art 3-chipper...
>> >;-)
>> >> >Otherwise, I'm very impressed with the technical capabilities of the
>> >camera!
>> >> Sony has...
>> >> It's the VX2000/PD150...;-)
>> >> The TRV900/PD100a still compares well against these,
>> >> though, for most casual purposes...
>> >Heh, hee! That's fair. Though, by "new", I mean released within the
>past
>> >year. There are advances in the technology that I *assume* are
>integrated
>> >in the newer TRV30 that aren't present in the TRV900/VX2000 which I hope
>> >will aid with the digital editing on a PC.
>> Nope. That protocol was determined years ago...
>> Also, people want to believe in improvements
>> in products with time (and these do happen - the
>> VX2000 is one fine machine [but not everything on
>> it is better than it was on the VX1000]), but
>> the truth is new models often are more cheaply
>> made, with new features added for sales reasons,
>> but for basic sound and picture quality, not often
>> are they really improved. The first two Mini-DV
>> camcorders on the market (years ago[!!!]) are
>> still kinda hard to beat (the Panasonic AG-EZ1U
>> and Sony VX1000), with some new models actually
>> inferior for picture and sound quality. Best
>> to choose from among the best designs out there,
>> regardless of whether or not they are "new"...
>Hmmm...okay, that's fair again. You're right...most of these protocols are
>designed and adopted before devices that use 'em even come out. But I would
>hope to think that maybe there are advances in speed or clarity of signal
>with each generation of camera. It also seems to me that the TRV30 supports
>more types of protocols than say the TRV900. Not to mention (as you did)
>that some of the newer cameras tend to sport neat consumer doo-dads (that
>might be a plus or a minus ;-).
>
>That said, I *am* pretty annoyed by the light vertical lines from the TRV30.
>Maybe it's not the camera for me (dammit...I've been agonizing over this
>decision for months now ;-). But I still have a hard time going with the
>TRV900 strictly because of it's age. I don't know why I can't get over that
>hurdle...
Do try - it is just a prejudice...;-)
If you have the chance sometime, try shooting
bare tree branches against sky, fall leaves
on the ground, cityscapes (and buildings in
general with brick lines or clapboard siding)
with both a good one-chipper and a good 3-chipper
hand-held. If you can stand the patterning and
artifacting along scan lines produced by the one
chipper with motion, then stay with it. If the
(somewhat...) smoother-looking picture of the
good 3-chipper satisfies more, well, then......;-)
The VX2000 picture is smoother-looking with motion
of contrasty edges over scan lines (though it is
not perfect) than the TRV900, which looks better
than the TRV30 - and the TRV900 doesn't show the
vertical white line picture defect that annoys
you with the TRV30 anywhere near as noticeably.
All three produce sharp (well, for TV...) images.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the visually
discerning...!;-) Some people on these NGs appear
not to notice or care about the myriad picture
problems that can plague video - or to select
gear to minimize these picture defects...;-)
Some of us are interested in doing so, though,
since otherwise, everything we shoot is degraded
by these quite-visible defects. Wait 'til you
notice strong color biases, oversharpening effects,
inability to show color subtleties, relatively low
resolution, excess contrast, an inability to show
good color in highlights and shadows, an inability
to produce good blacks, a tendency to lose color
in low light, a tendency to show "graininess" in
low light, "blooming", poor skin-tone and color,
etc....;-) There is no camcorder that produces a
perfect picture, but some do a better job of this
than others. Unfortunately, there is some rough
relationship between size/weight/price and picture
quality, though there are examples of "upscale"
cameras with relatively inferior picture quality,
and "downscale" cameras that "exceed their
station"...;-) Used with understanding of their
limitations, I think the Sony TRV30, TRV900, and
VX2000 all fit in this second group... Heck,
don't "kick a gift horse in the mouth" - look
at the TRV900 before deciding...;-)