On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:42:51 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d7dbfee.5440259@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 12:50:45 -0700, "Paul Tauger"
>>
>> >Thanks for the info. Now I'm really torn -- the smaller form factor, as
>> >compared to the VX2000, makes the 950 more attractive. I'm trying to
>figure
>> >out whether the 950 will do better than my current consumer camcorder, a
>> >TRV-20, in low light. The 20 is _almost_ good enough, but not quite.
>I'm
>> >replacing it primarily because I don't like the artifacting which is
>very,
>> >very noticeable on strong vertical and horizontal lines, e.g. when
>shooting
>> >buildings. I'm assuming the 950 will do better in this respect, as well
>as
>> >in color saturation. Now, if it will just handle low light . . .
>> >
>> >Does anyone know any store in Southern California where I can try these
>> >things side by side?
>> There MUST be one, certainly in LA...! ;-)
>> As for the low-light range, I suspect the range
>> of the TRV950 would be a tad (but just a tad...)
>> short of the TRV20 in low light, though near its
>> limit, as others pointed out, it is likely good,
>How so? Are the CCDs smaller in the 950?
Yes, unfortunately, and with higher pixel count than
average for 3-CCD cameras - both work against good
low-light performance...
>I thought there would be some
>benefit in low light sensitivity due to the fact that the 950 is a 3 CCD
>machine, i.e. triple the CCD surface area.
I go by observed results... Theory says the
one-chippers have the low light advantage, but all
the DV camcorders but the 950 point in the opposite direction, so.........;-)
>> and better than the alternatives short the VX2000
>> (and the TRV900, if "reach at any price" is OK -
>> though I find the 900 image quite acceptable in
>> low light, especially with a little tweaking in
>> Premiere...).
>I've tried the 900 in low light situations -- it's performance is more than
>adequate for what I do. The 20 actually comes close. I've found that
>tweaking in Premiere can produce a very usable image, albeit one with a lot
>of color noise. For my travel applications, color noise, while annoying,
>isn't a critical issue -- at least the camcorder can "see" what I see in low
>light situations. My recollection was that the 900 delivered virtually no
>color noise in low light, and offered a significantly more saturated image
>on top of that.
www.bealecorner.com/trv900/trv950/images1.html
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
give you some idea of relative low-light range and
picture quality (in the last, the TRV20 is the same
as the PC100). All the Sony one-chippers drop out most
color at +18db gain; if you prevent them from going
above +15, you can recover good color in processing;
the 3-chippers retain better color at +18, and
better color in the shadows/highlights generally...
>> As for artifacting, I would like to
>> see the motion image of the 950 - but I suspect
>> that the annoying artifacting of the TRV20/30
>> series would be much reduced (but not absent).
>That's encouraging. I don't need perfection and, after all, my videos
>aren't intended for broadcast or professional use. I imagine that there
>will always be some artifacting in a digital image -- it's part and parcel
>of the digital process. In my TRV20, though, it is truly painful. I can
>reduce it some in Premiere, but I also lose resolution when I do. I'd be
>happy just to lose that "crawling" appearance when I shoot buildings.
It is dreadful - and surprising how few complaints
there are now about it. When the TRV20/PC100 first
came out, it was an issue - now no one mentions it
but us...;-) BTW, it is fun to watch various home
"make-over" shows on the H&G channel, and see the
DV "pick-up" clips added in with the beautifully
smooth original shots - it is painful to see
shingles, tiles, clapboards, bricks, etc. turn
into large areas of "buzzing" visual textures, with
motions all their own...;-) But, hey, they *could*
have used at least a VX2000 for these and reduced
this effect...! ;-)
>> Even between the 900 and 2000 there is a
>> difference in this, with the 2000 picture being
>> "quieter" with motion, but not completely without
>> artifacting. As usual, it boils down to
>> portability vs. versatility/quality (with the
>> differences not being huge) - and for travel,
>> mebbe the 950 is the best choice...
>I'm sorely tempted to try the 2000, particularly after looking at those
>still image comparisons that you pointed me to. I spent an evening shooting
>with a VX1000 once and, as I recall, it was somewhat bigger and heavier than
>I'm really comfortable with. Even with a rubber shade and smaller battery,
>it'll still be a handful. I'm reluctant, though, to drop a couple of
>thousand dollars on a TRV950 if it means getting the same mediocre
>performance in low light as I get now with the 20. I'd rather live with the
>20 another year or so and see if something better doesn't come down the pike
>(though the camera manufacturers seem to think that no one cares about low
>light, and every one wants a camcorder that doubles as a crummy digital
>still camera -- I care about low light and have no need for digital still
>imaging in a camcorder).
Likewise - I think I would be looking for a TRV900
about now, given the above...;-) Add a Sony 908c
mic for when you want good ambient sound pickup
(and a VX1000 eyecup, so you can see the TRV900's
finder), a Raynox .66X WA converter (for low
distortion, and it is sharp on the 900 even into
the tele range), a couple of NPF-750 batteries,
and a padded-side photo bag of the right size to
hold the above, and you have a fairly good "kit"
for travel...