|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/26/06 15:41
Smarty wrote:
> 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.
My TR600 had a CCD sensor and did far better in low light than my
TRV20.
> 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.
As I said, my TR600 (and the next model up, the TR700) both did very
well in lowlight, and far better than any of Sony's consumer offerings,
except the VX2000/2100 and TRV900.
> 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 TR600, an NTSC machine, did not exhibit smearing to any significant
degree, and no ghosting. It's resolution was limited to around 450
lines, which was noticeably below what my VX2000 can do.
> 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.
It depends on what you mean by "decent." I spent quite a bit of time
comparing the 950 to the VX2000, because I really preferred the form
factor of the former, but there was simply no way it could compare or,
for that matter, meet my needs -- I use my camcorder for travel
videography, and frequently shoot at night or indoors in situations
where I have no control over the lighting (and for which on-camera
lighting would result in an ugly, ENG appearance, if even allowed at
all). The 950 was clearly not up to the task. The VX2000 is.
> 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]
|