|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/28/06 05:11
Smarty wrote:
> Larry,
>
> PTravel actually did not, as you state, quote "lines of horizontal
> resolution". He merely stated "it's resolution was limited to around 450
> lines". It was, indeed, my error to assume he actually meant horizontal
> resolution rather than vertical resolution, but his language was imprecise,
> and my interpretation was erroneous. I think we can all agree that the
> common usage and vernacular in video discussions tends to use the term
> "resolution" loosely in the way PTravel did, and I failed to either ask him
> to clarify or to use the more common (horizontal) interpretation.
I don't think we can agree with that at all. Resolution is used
interchangeable (and imprecisely) in the digital realm to specify the
total number of pixels, e.g. 720 x 480, and in the context that I used
it, i.e. horizontal resolution. No one ever talks about resolution in
terms of the number of horizontal scan lines.
> I have no knowledge of the specific camcorder or sensor involved in the
> TR600. It was apparently introduced over 10 years ago, and the Hi8 format
> was never broadly successful.
I assume your definition of "broadly successful" is peculiar in the
same manner as your definition of "decent video."
The Hi8 format was extremely successful, until the introduction of
MiniDV. Sony introduced the VX3, which was a prosumer Hi8 machine, and
had roughly atleast dozen different Hi8 models spanning the price
spectrum. The TR700 was the top consumer model. The TR600 was right
below it.
> It very well may be extremely good in low
> light, have no lag, and have high resolution just as PTravel states. My own
> use of Hi8 format camcorders, however, leads me to the conclusion that these
> units struggle to deliver even 400 lines of horizontal resolution, and even
> then add dropouts, visible chroma noise, and capture issues combining to
> make green screen keying look crummy.
Apparently you have little experience with Hi8. The TR600 was rated at
3 lux (and when lux ratings actually meant something).
>
> Since the original poster was looking for "the cheapest 'good' camera I can
> get",
That's not what he was looking for. He wanted a cheap camera that was
good in low light and would produce good-quality green screen. There's
no such thing, which is what I pointed out. You jumped in with some
bottom-of-the-line miniDV machines that were incapable of functioning
well in even moderate light and, because they were single chip
camcorders, would produce poor-quality green screen.
> I merely offered, and now repeat, that cheap MiniDV camcorders now
> available in abundance make a lot more sense to recommend, rather than
> suggesting that something like a TR600 or any older vintage, used camcorder
> would be an alternative.
I didn't suggest a TR600. Is there a reason why you keep twisting what
I said? My point, which you keep missing, is that the OP will have to
spend more then his budget in order to do what he plans.
> PTravel's specific advice / reply was that there
> was "nothing digital in your price range" and "nothing with good low light
> performance"
And that's correct.
> and Martin reinforced this position with his suggestion that an
> analog camera was the way to go. His reply stated: "You're left to an
> analogue format, and your best choice would be one
> of the older Hi-8 camera's".
Take up Martin's advice with Martin. Don't try to conflate mine with
his. I have no opinion as to whether a Hi8 camera would suffice. It
certainly would have better low light performance than any miniDV
machine in the OP's price range. I've never tried green screen with a
Hi8, but I'd suspect that a single-chip machine -- any single-chip
machine -- won't produce particularly good results.
>
> I feel both of these replies, taken individually as well as jointly, are
> incomplete and misleading,
What was misleading was your recommendation of cheap 1/6" CCD
camcorders as having good low-light performance.
> particularly since the original post was
> explicitly asking for chroma keying / green screen. The notion of taking the
> very marginal video from these older analog cameras, thus requiring, in
> addition, a capture card to convert their analog output to permit computer
> chromakeying, is a recipe for disappointment.
The video quality from older Hi8 camcorders will exceed that of many
cheapie miniDV machines. Take a look at the specs -- many of the
bottom-of-the-ladder miniDV camcorders compare to VHS machines in terms
of resolution (horizontal resolution, in case that is not clear).
>
> I continue to believe that a number of the $400 price range MiniDV
> camcorders, including ones cited previously, are a better solution.
And you continue to be wrong.
>
> Since the original poster has found a solution, this exchange is both
> academic and moot, but I challenged the original replies hoping to provide
> the OP with an alternative view.
An inaccurate view that, apparently, is ill-informed.
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
>
> "Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9888808047496thefrogprince@69.28.173.186...
> > Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jukka Aho" <jukka.aho@iki.fi> said:
> >
> >> Smarty wrote:
> >>
> >>> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> PTravel quoted "lines of horizontal resolution" figures. That's (ahem!)
> >> a measurement of horizontal resolution, and it is measured by using a
> >> resolution test target that has _vertical_ lines on it.
> >>
> >> You're confusing those figures with the number of "active" scanlines in
> >> video signal, which has more to do with vertical resolution.
> >
> > A common mistake, which needs correction several times each month...
> >
> > --
> > Larry Jandro
> > Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
> > Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
> > [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|