|
|
Posted by Steve King on 11/24/06 17:16
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:_82dne_d77C-v_rYnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> 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-
My very early Sony Hi-8, a CCD V-99 I believe, was (is) not bad in low
light. I was always surprised at the quality, when I shot available light
stage plays my children were in. Of course, the newer 3-chip DV cameras put
it to shame.
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|