|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/28/06 06:53
Smarty wrote:
> PTravel,
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinions. You see the world differently,
> and perhaps Hi8 was, as you say, "extremely successful" despite the fact
> that set-top Hi8 VCRs, pre-recorded Hi8 tapes, and multiple vendor support
> never materialized in any significant way.
Hi8 was intended as video capture format, not a distribution format.
There are no set-top miniDV VCRs, pre-recorded miniDV tapes, etc. for
the same reason.
>
> Nor did I realize that a previous time existed when "lux ratings actually
> meant something", but that they now, somehow, have less accuracy.
Lux ratings now are marketing tools. They weren't 10 years ago. Then,
they provided a reasonably accurate benchmark for comparison of
different machines.
> I presume
> you must be referring to the important FTC decision where they repealed the
> "Honest Lux Reporting Law" previously approved by Congress in the very same
> year your TR600 was released............ (-8
>
> Nor did I realize that these crummy, cheap, recent DV camcorders had no hope
> of providing the original poster either low light or a green screen solution
> since their single CCDs are, after all, inferior to the single CCDs in those
> wonderful older Hi8 cameras you prefer. Clearly the 1/4" CCD I proposed
> could never even begin to rival the immense super sensitive CCDs used in the
> 1995 vintage camcorder you cite, made in that bygone era when a lux was
> truly a lux.
1/4" CCDs in a Hi8 machine will have better low-light sensitivity than
1/4" CCDs in a miniDV machine. Do a google search if you want the
technical explanation as to why. As for green screen, you didn't read
my post very carefully. Single CCD machines do not have the color
accuracy or saturation of 3-CCD machines.
>
> I will also remind you that the original poster stated that he was
> (unsuccessfully) using a Hi8 camcorder, found it woefully inadequate, and
> expressly asked for a "digital" upgrade alternative. I replied to him in
> this spirit and with his words / and request literally being respected.
One more time: my recommendation was _not_ to use a Hi8 machine, but
to reconsider the budget. The OP will _not_ get satisfactory low-light
performance form an inexpensive miniDV camcorder, nor will he be able
to get decent green screen. MiniDV (or any D-25 digital camera) is not
a particularly good format for any kind of chroma key.
>
> You take exception to my recommendation. I take exception to yours. Let's
> leave it at that. Newsgroups are intended to provide a variety of opinions,
> and in this regard, I consider both opinions to have merit in attempting to
> assist the OP.
I've given my opinions, both of the OP's requirements and your advice.
>
> Smarty
>
>
>
>
> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164690700.031732.318560@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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]
|