|
|
Posted by PTravel on 11/22/06 03:34
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:3qqdnfIpvsfiXP7YnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> And here's a Sony for $309......
>
> http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4077914
>
> Smarty
It has a single 1/6" ccd. It's going to have dismal low-light performance
(and probably mediocre performance in medium light.
>
>
>
> "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]
|