Posted by Smarty on 11/24/06 08:25

PTravel,

It was not my intention to misquote you. It was Martin Heffels, not you, who
stated "You're left to an analogue format, and your best choice would be one
of the older Hi-8 camera's" My apologies.

As regards a recommendation for a Hi8 camera:

Sony makes currently offers exactly one model, the TRV138, which also has a
1/6 inch CCD sensor and sells for $239 MSRP. Canon no longer makes Hi8 (and
hasn't for several years). JVC and Sharp no longer make them either. An
older Hi8 camcorder is even worse for green screen work.

An analog recording scheme such as Hi8 cannot maintain the chroma stability
to do better (or even as good) chroma keying as a DV format. Hi8 analog
chroma has terrible jitter / time base instability, chroma noise, and color
burst jitter which makes the color signal ***especially*** weak and crummy.
And an older analog Hi8 camcorder with no digital interface, neither
Firewire nor USB, where the original poster has to then use an analog
capture card to take his crappy video into a computer via a capture card to
do chroma keying, would work poorly compared to DV and Firewire / USB for
chroma keying.

Your point that a 3 CCD camera will do better than a 1 CCD camera is one I
have agreed with since the start. Since used TRV900s are fetching close to
$900 on eBay, other possible choices might be a used TRV950, which quite
deservedly is bringing much less than $900, or maybe one of the cheaper
Panasonic 3 CCD consumer cameras purchased used.

The OP has learned the essential truth, that a lot of well chosen lighting
and a 3 CCD camera are the better way to do green screen. And in this
regard, a plain old $400 DV camcorder can and will do excellent chroma
keying as well when lighting is adequate and well placed.

If the issue remains whether you can do low light video with an inexpensive
DV camcorder, as opposed to needing to spend a great deal more than $400 to
buy a 3 CCD design, I can only say that Sony, Canon, JVC, Samsung and others
have devoted immense energy to making this particular aspect of consumer
camcorders very capable. For example, the low light performance on this Sony
is very good since it uses a sensor which is over twice the area / size of
the 1/6 inch camcorders previously discussed. This one sells for under $400.

http://www.easycamcorders.com/specs/Sony--DCR-TRV19.htm

I can only summarize my position by saying that Hi8 analog makes no sense
for either green screen or low light given the current DV options.

A $400 DV camcorder such as the one cited above will do excellent green
screen with good lighting, and handle low light very nicely as well. And
yes, more expensive, and 3 CCD cameras will generally be better in most
respects.

Smarty











<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1164341021.268878.60430@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Smarty wrote:
>> PTravel,
>>
>> My point is merely that brand new DV camcorders can now be had for $250,
>> and yes, indeed, they are unlikely to have really good low light
>> performance
>> (even though the Canon I found for $250 has a built in movie light which
>> helps a lot in some situations).
>
> The OP asked for a camcorder capable of good low-light performance and,
> also, capable of doing green screen. Your $250 camcorder can do
> neither.
>
>
>> The small, one sensor cameras will not
>> compete with the big 3 CCD cameras in this regard, but then again, I
>> don't
>> recall seeing any VX2100s for $400 lately......
>
> The issue is less one sensor, at least with respect to low-light
> performance, as it is very small sensor. A 3 ccd camcorder will be
> better for green screen work than a single ccd camcorder.
>
> And, though there are no VX2100s for $400, your $250 camcorder will
> not, in any way, meet the requirements of the OP.
>
>>
>> What I am stating is that an analog camera is not the best solution IMHO,
>> and even if they do well in low light (which many do not), they also tend
>> to
>> exhibit lag, persistence, smearing, and other artifacts of their nuvicon
>> or
>> other imagers as well as generally poor color purity which will be far
>> more
>> destructive to green screen chroma keying than the never DV encoders and
>> solid state imagers.
>
> That's nonsense. Most Hi-8 camcorders used ccds, not nuvicons, and
> absolutely did not exhibit lag, persistence or smearing.
>
>>
>> I thus took exception to your advice to find an analog model,
>
> I didn't advise finding an analog model. I said there was no $400
> digital camcorder that would meet the OP's requirements. I don't know
> enough about what the OP is planning to do to be able to determine
> whether an analog camcorder might work.
>
>> and also want
>> to point out that DV camcorders are now ****dirt cheap**** and thus a
>> careful shopper will find options at $400 in a DV format which are likely
>> to
>> make a lot more sense than an analog recommendation.
>
> Completely irrelevant to the OP's questions. He needed a camcorder
> that was good in low light and could do green screen. None of your
> dirt cheap camcorders meet these requirements. As for the "options,"
> they are are, in the sub $1,000 range, primarily gimmicks that not only
> don't improve video quality, but actually degrade it.
>
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:UAP8h.13421$9v5.13226@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> >
>> > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> > news:zKSdncxo855yXf7YnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> >> Here's a single example......a new DV Canon for $252 with free
>> >> shipping:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.bensbargains.net/deal/11662/
>> >>
>> >> Smarty
>> >
>> > Another 1/6" ccd. What did you think this was, besides an example of a
>> > consumer camcorder that doesn't meet the stated needs of the OP.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:QKydnYDpbvWVJv7YnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> >>> Certainly there has to be some digital DV camcorders out there for
>> >>> $400
>> >>> rather than an analog camera. There are many people on eBay and
>> >>> elsewhere looking to trade up to DV as well as occasional promotions
>> >>> on
>> >>> the web with brand new DV camcorders showing up in this $400 price
>> >>> range.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Smarty
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:4shp2aFvnt0hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <adric22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:1164159662.642531.205220@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>>>> Any idea how much light 6 lux is? It's very little. So when
>> >>>>>> looking
>> >>>>>> at
>> >>>>>> daylight, it's plenty. The reason that everything looks horrible
>> >>>>>> in
>> >>>>>> daylight, is probably because you overexpose your highlights.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> No.. It looks horrible because it can never get enough light. I've
>> >>>>> tried every setting on the exposure control, including automatic.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> That must be an operator problem. Bright lights indoor-lights
>> >>>>>> throw
>> >>>>>> out
>> >>>>>> more than 6 lux. Let me give you an idea about lux-rating: Some
>> >>>>>> time
>> >>>>>> ago I
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You are dead wrong. The lux rating is more accurately the "minimum
>> >>>>> lux" rating. But that is the minimum neccessary to get a picture,
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> the minimum *good picture*. I'm currently borrowing a Sony PD-150
>> >>>>> which has a lux-rating of 2 and the indoor shots are extreemly
>> >>>>> clear.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The PD-150 is the pro version of the VX2000, a prosumer 3-ccd
>> >>>> camcorder
>> >>>> with 1/3" sensors. Your D-8 machine is a consumer camcorder with a
>> >>>> single sensor, probably 1/4", but possible as small as 1/6".
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I also have an older analog hi-8 camcorder which has a lux rating
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> 3.
>> >>>>> It actually boasts a much better indoor image, however, it is a
>> >>>>> pain
>> >>>>> to capture video from that and it doesn't even have S-video so I
>> >>>>> can't
>> >>>>> seperate the chroma (which is bad for green-screen videos)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The older hi-8 machines had larger sensors that were also less
>> >>>> densely
>> >>>> packed, as they didn't try to double as still cameras.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> A VX2100 would be your best choice, but it's way over your budget.
>> >>>>>> You're
>> >>>>>> left to an anlogue format, and your best choice would be one of
>> >>>>>> the
>> >>>>>> older
>> >>>>>> Hi-8 camera's which have a larger CCD, and as such are more
>> >>>>>> light-sensitive.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes. I'm familiar with the VX series, but way out of my price
>> >>>>> range.
>> >>>>> And you are correct that the older cameras are more light
>> >>>>> sensative,
>> >>>>> as
>> >>>>> I mentioned my old 3-lux camera. Unfortunatly, because they are
>> >>>>> analog
>> >>>>> it is difficult to get a good image captured into my computer.
>> >>>>> However, I have been meaning to try capturing with that camera to a
>> >>>>> hi-8 tape and then playing it back in my digital-8 camera (which
>> >>>>> will
>> >>>>> convert it to digital and stream it over the 1394) and this may
>> >>>>> actually give me the chroma/luma seperation I need. But this is a
>> >>>>> pain.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you want good low-light performance, it may be your only choice.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --DavidM
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>

[Back to original message]