|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/24/06 04:03
Smarty wrote:
> PTravel,
>
> My point is merely that brand new DV camcorders can now be had for $250,
> and yes, indeed, they are unlikely to have really good low light performance
> (even though the Canon I found for $250 has a built in movie light which
> helps a lot in some situations).
The OP asked for a camcorder capable of good low-light performance and,
also, capable of doing green screen. Your $250 camcorder can do
neither.
> The small, one sensor cameras will not
> compete with the big 3 CCD cameras in this regard, but then again, I don't
> recall seeing any VX2100s for $400 lately......
The issue is less one sensor, at least with respect to low-light
performance, as it is very small sensor. A 3 ccd camcorder will be
better for green screen work than a single ccd camcorder.
And, though there are no VX2100s for $400, your $250 camcorder will
not, in any way, meet the requirements of the OP.
>
> What I am stating is that an analog camera is not the best solution IMHO,
> and even if they do well in low light (which many do not), they also tend to
> exhibit lag, persistence, smearing, and other artifacts of their nuvicon or
> other imagers as well as generally poor color purity which will be far more
> destructive to green screen chroma keying than the never DV encoders and
> solid state imagers.
That's nonsense. Most Hi-8 camcorders used ccds, not nuvicons, and
absolutely did not exhibit lag, persistence or smearing.
>
> I thus took exception to your advice to find an analog model,
I didn't advise finding an analog model. I said there was no $400
digital camcorder that would meet the OP's requirements. I don't know
enough about what the OP is planning to do to be able to determine
whether an analog camcorder might work.
> and also want
> to point out that DV camcorders are now ****dirt cheap**** and thus a
> careful shopper will find options at $400 in a DV format which are likely to
> make a lot more sense than an analog recommendation.
Completely irrelevant to the OP's questions. He needed a camcorder
that was good in low light and could do green screen. None of your
dirt cheap camcorders meet these requirements. As for the "options,"
they are are, in the sub $1,000 range, primarily gimmicks that not only
don't improve video quality, but actually degrade it.
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:UAP8h.13421$9v5.13226@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "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
> >
> > Another 1/6" ccd. What did you think this was, besides an example of a
> > consumer camcorder that doesn't meet the stated needs of the OP.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "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]
|