On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 13:38:09 +1030, "K+"
>If by "low light" you mean that you want to be able to get exceptional
>colour in low light conditions, then my experience under these conditions
>with the TRV900 has been very disappointing.
>Videoing indoors under fluoro lighting looks ok in the viewfinder, worse on
>a TV screen, and horribly grainy with murky colours on a computer monitor,
>especially when I look at individual frames for animations and,
>paradoxically, even more so when the video was taken in progressive scan
>mode.
Computer monitors have different
gamma/brightness/scanline-timing/color-standards than
TV, so the images are not comparable; the still-photo
optimization is different from motion-video optimization
on the camera, also... I presume the shooter of animations
would supply a good amount of light for the work, but if
not, the VX2000 offers advantages...
>I've seen much better results from el cheapo VHS camcorders under low
>light conditions - they don't have the resolution of the TRV900, but they
>don't produce the murky graininess either! Turn up the gain in the TRV900
>and what you actually get is loss! If your primary need is to produce
>animations at high resolution you might consider one of the other camcorder
>brands that takes higher resolution (TRV900 resolution is ~VGA) progressive
>scan video at normal frame rates. The TRV900 progressive scan is half
>normal frame rate, so for quickly moving subjects it produces unwatchable
>video and jerky animations.
>
>I have no experience with the TRV30. The TRV900 is wonderful in indirect
>sunlight and very bright fluoro lighting. Incidentally, on full auto
>settings in normal daylight conditions the ND filter kicks in VERY early -
>seems absolutely absurd when the camera supports shutter speeds up to
>1/10,000! I don't know if this filter causes image deterioration because
>almost all my videoing is indoors (gymnasium).
It doesn't, but it is included to allow bright-light
shooting with lens stops that are not seriously
diffraction-limited for good resolution, and with shutter
speeds slow enough to prevent strobing with motion...
>The TRV900 has been discontinued I think, so is probably yesterday's
>technology as your second advisor suggests. I've had a good run from mine,
>but if I lost it now I would seek a camera with much better low light
>performance to replace it.
It has not been discontinued, so far as I know, and
even if it has been, it (like the "long" discontinued
VX1000) compares VERY well with the latest offerings
(with the possible exception of the VX2000).
>"Dennis Milller"
>news:wpeO7.1835$qI.1617248@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>>
>> Hi. I'm trying to decide between the TRV30 and the TRV900. I plan to use
>the
>> camera to capture material that I will incorporate in my "experimental"
>> animations. I need manual shutter speed, low light, and exceptional color.
>> Still images are not an issue whatsoever.
>>
>> I can get the TRV30 and some accessories for about the price of the 900
>> alone. I've heard from one source that the 3 CCDs on the 900 are the deal
>> maker, while another pro says those CCDs use "analog" circuitry, and the
>> 30 is far superior.
The last is nonsense...
The two cameras have comparable sharpness, but the 900
has noticeably better low-light ability, and on moving
contrasty edges, artifacting is less annoying...