|
|
Posted by Smarty on 11/22/06 03:18
And here's a Sony for $309......
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4077914
Smarty
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:zKSdncxo855yXf7YnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> 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]
|