Posted by Smarty on 11/27/06 02:27

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


>
>> 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-
>> > --
>

[Back to original message]