|
|
Posted by Smarty on 11/22/06 03:15
Here's a single example......a new DV Canon for $252 with free shipping:
http://www.bensbargains.net/deal/11662/
Smarty
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:QKydnYDpbvWVJv7YnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@adelphia.com...
> Certainly there has to be some digital DV camcorders out there for $400
> rather than an analog camera. There are many people on eBay and elsewhere
> looking to trade up to DV as well as occasional promotions on the web with
> brand new DV camcorders showing up in this $400 price range.
>
>
> Smarty
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:4shp2aFvnt0hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164159662.642531.205220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Any idea how much light 6 lux is? It's very little. So when looking at
>>>> daylight, it's plenty. The reason that everything looks horrible in
>>>> daylight, is probably because you overexpose your highlights.
>>>
>>> No.. It looks horrible because it can never get enough light. I've
>>> tried every setting on the exposure control, including automatic.
>>>
>>>> That must be an operator problem. Bright lights indoor-lights throw out
>>>> more than 6 lux. Let me give you an idea about lux-rating: Some time
>>>> ago I
>>>
>>> You are dead wrong. The lux rating is more accurately the "minimum
>>> lux" rating. But that is the minimum neccessary to get a picture, not
>>> the minimum *good picture*. I'm currently borrowing a Sony PD-150
>>> which has a lux-rating of 2 and the indoor shots are extreemly clear.
>>
>> The PD-150 is the pro version of the VX2000, a prosumer 3-ccd camcorder
>> with 1/3" sensors. Your D-8 machine is a consumer camcorder with a
>> single sensor, probably 1/4", but possible as small as 1/6".
>>
>>
>>> I also have an older analog hi-8 camcorder which has a lux rating of 3.
>>> It actually boasts a much better indoor image, however, it is a pain
>>> to capture video from that and it doesn't even have S-video so I can't
>>> seperate the chroma (which is bad for green-screen videos)
>>
>> The older hi-8 machines had larger sensors that were also less densely
>> packed, as they didn't try to double as still cameras.
>>
>>>
>>>> A VX2100 would be your best choice, but it's way over your budget.
>>>> You're
>>>> left to an anlogue format, and your best choice would be one of the
>>>> older
>>>> Hi-8 camera's which have a larger CCD, and as such are more
>>>> light-sensitive.
>>>
>>> Yes. I'm familiar with the VX series, but way out of my price range.
>>> And you are correct that the older cameras are more light sensative, as
>>> I mentioned my old 3-lux camera. Unfortunatly, because they are analog
>>> it is difficult to get a good image captured into my computer.
>>> However, I have been meaning to try capturing with that camera to a
>>> hi-8 tape and then playing it back in my digital-8 camera (which will
>>> convert it to digital and stream it over the 1394) and this may
>>> actually give me the chroma/luma seperation I need. But this is a
>>> pain.
>>
>> If you want good low-light performance, it may be your only choice.
>>
>>>
>>> --DavidM
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|