|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/27/06 07:00
Smarty wrote:
> PTravel,
>
> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164555696.145839.300870@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > My TR600 had a CCD sensor and did far better in low light than my
> > TRV20.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> This is truly remarkable, since NTSC is a 525 line system which only
> displays, in the very optimal case, 480 active lines. The rest are hidden in
> the 45 line vertical blank interval. If your TR600 was, as you contend, 450
> lines, what in the world was your VX2000 doing to be noticeably supeior? Hi8
> camcorders never did remotely close to this level of performance,
> ***EVER***, since they were extremely limited by the narrow tape and very
> slow effective writing speeds of the 8 mm format.
>
> Smarty
"Lines of resolution" refers to the number of lines that can be
resolved across the horizontal scan, and has nothing to do with the
number of horizontal scan lines in the NTSC standard. See, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lines_of_resolution
Given your apparent knowledge of video, I'm surprised that you didn't
know this. VHS and 8mm are limited to around 250 lines. SVHS can do
400 lines. Hi8 is capable of around 400 to 425 lines (I probably
overstated the case when I said it did 450). MiniDV can do up to 525
lines. You might find this article instructive:
http://www.videomaker.com/article/8128/
As for the VX2000 specs, you are completely wrong. See them here:
http://www.artsit.unimelb.edu.au/facilities_equip/equip-sonyVX2000.html?id=2809
You'll also find an interesting article here that explains lines of
resolution quite nicely and also has the VX2000 specs:
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=8271&PageNum=2
The video from my VX2000 is noticeably superior to Hi8, given that a
decent monitor is capable of 700 lines of resolution. Even your TRV950
can, in theory, achieve 530 lines of resolution (see its specs here:
http://www.sonystyle.com/intershoproot/eCS/Store/en/documents/specifications/specs_dcrtrv950.pdf)
However, because it uses tiny 1/4.7" CCDs at a much higher sensor
density than the VX2000's 1/3" CCDs, it can not begin to approach the
low-light performance of the VX2000/VX2100.
As I said in my previous post, we obviously have different definitions
of "decent video" in the context of lowlight. My VX2000 delivers
saturated, noiseless video in very challenging situations, e.g. the
light of one candle. There is no other camcorder available for the
same price or less that can do this.
>
> >
> >> 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]
|