|
|
Posted by Smarty on 11/24/06 16:47
Martin and Ptravel,
I've owned the TRV900, the 950, and several Hi8 camcorders. In my own
experience and research, the ***ONLY*** Hi8 camcorders which were ***EVER***
good in low light used nuvicons and non solid state imagers. The CCD / CMOS
imagers used in newer Hi8 cameras were typically small, consumer-style
limited sensitivity devices. And thus my original observation that an older
analog Hi8 camcorder is likely to have a non solid state imager which
exhibits its' own peculiar artifacts. If there was truly a good low light
solid state Hi8 camcorder made, I would appreciate knowing about it. My
prior TRV81 Hi8 camera did use a relatively large CCD and did have better
low light performance as a result, but it had smear and ghosting artifacts,
probably because some of the earlier CCD devices used bucket brigade or
other analog storage capacitors which could not dump their charge completely
within the frame interval of 16.6 milliseconds used in NTSC 60 Hz systems
Perhaps the PAL versions did a little better in this regard since they had a
longer frame period to decay.
My TRV950 was indeed a step down in low light from the 900, but still an
excellent camcorder with good color purity and accuracy, and decent low
light performance. I think it would serve the needs of the OP very well,
since their weak reputation compared to the predecessor 900 makes them
relatively inexpensive to buy second hand. My personal experience with
owning (2) TRV900s was that their low light was quite good, and bettered
only by some earlier Nuvicon cameras I owned which (as I stated) had their
own problems and the VX2000, which was indeed superior. My current FX1 HDV
suffers by comparison in this regard.
Smarty
"Martin Heffels" <is.itme@oris.ityou.info> wrote in message
news:pmgdm25t0la29cojb3ib374kgjd39e8p6e@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2006 01:02:33 -0800, ptravel@travelersvideo.com wrote:
>
>>The TRV950 is pretty dismal in
>>low light -- it's the reason I wound up with a VX2000: the TRV900 was
>>no longer available and the TRV950 just wouldn't cut it.
>
> I have a TRV900, but was never too pleased about it's low-light
> performance. Maybe I'm too picky :-))
>
> -m-
> --
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|