|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DVD Cam-corders questionsI am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions
regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs. 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon brands? Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on normal DVD players etc? Thanks in advance for your help. Mak. mak***@gmail.com wrote:
Show quote > I am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions IMO, DVD camcorders should never have been allowed to come to market.> regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs. > > 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few > minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing > the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next > recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon brands? > > Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on > normal DVD players etc? > > Thanks in advance for your help. > > Mak. If all you ever want to do with it is shoot and archive, be my guest. If you any thoughts of doing editing though, buy a miniDV camcorder instead and save yourself a lot of grief. Mike
Show quote
"Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message However, it's still possible to satisfactorily edit video that is not on news:50b9msF1fcmgcU1@mid.individual.net... > > mak***@gmail.com wrote: >> I am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions >> regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs. >> >> 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few >> minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing >> the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next >> recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon brands? >> >> Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on >> normal DVD players etc? >> >> Thanks in advance for your help. >> >> Mak. > > > IMO, DVD camcorders should never have been allowed to come to market. > If all you ever want to do with it is shoot and archive, be my guest. > If you any thoughts of doing editing though, buy a miniDV camcorder > instead > and save yourself a lot of grief. > > Mike miniDV, I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory card of a friend's digital still camera. The results were surprisingly good for viewing on a relatively small screen. But not so good if you want to project the film on to a 100 inch screen with a video projector. Even my miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) doesn't go too well on very large screens, it's not as good as commercial DVDs, for example. People say that you need to use miniDV for the best results, but they then go and make a DVD of their film and compress a 12 gig file down to 4 gig. After all, it's convenient to make a DVD of your results so that you can get the benefit of chapters etc. But to get the full benefit of miniDV, IMHO, after editing, you need to make an avi file, not an mpg file. As soon as you make an mpg file for use on a DVD, you have compressed your video considerably, so the final result wouldn't be much better than editing video that was taken on a DVD camcorder. And then if you want to play your avi file back, you need to connect your computer or your camcorder to your TV, because your DVD player doesn't recognise avi files. So there are some advantages to using DVDs for showing your movies, particularly for home use and with screens no larger than, say, 32" I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs and recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the video so that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see much wrong with DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to project the results on to very large screens! Jim S wrote:
Show quote > "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message I've edited a lot of miniDV footage that has been displayed on 8' x 10' (or> news:50b9msF1fcmgcU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> mak***@gmail.com wrote: >>> I am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions >>> regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs. >>> >>> 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few >>> minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing >>> the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next >>> recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon >>> brands? >>> >>> Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on >>> normal DVD players etc? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your help. >>> >>> Mak. >> >> >> IMO, DVD camcorders should never have been allowed to come to market. >> If all you ever want to do with it is shoot and archive, be my guest. >> If you any thoughts of doing editing though, buy a miniDV camcorder >> instead >> and save yourself a lot of grief. >> >> Mike > > However, it's still possible to satisfactorily edit video that is not > on miniDV, I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory > card of a friend's digital still camera. The results were > surprisingly good for viewing on a relatively small screen. But not > so good if you want to project the film on to a 100 inch screen with > a video projector. Even my miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) > doesn't go too well on very large screens, it's not as good as > commercial DVDs, for example. larger) projection screens. The quality of the projector and, to a lesser extent, the screen, are the critical factors here. Having a decent 3 chip camcorder doesn't hurt either :-( > People say that you need to use miniDV for the best results, but they I'd much rather do that then start with a already highly compressed format> then go and make a DVD of their film and compress a 12 gig file down > to 4 gig. and compress it even further. My videos can (and often do) involve a lot of FX processing (eg. chroma key). If I started with miniDVD footgae, this wouldn't even be an option due to the highly compressed nature of the original fooatge. > After all, it's convenient to make a DVD of your results so See my previous statement . DVDs were designed as a delivery medium, not as> that you can get the benefit of chapters etc. But to get the full > benefit of miniDV, IMHO, after editing, you need to make an avi file, > not an mpg file. As soon as you make an mpg file for use on a DVD, > you have compressed your video considerably, so the final result > wouldn't be much better than editing video that was taken on a DVD > camcorder. a shooting medium. > And then if you want to play your avi file back, you need to connect Once again, like a lot of folks I know, I shoot for the big screen all the> your computer or your camcorder to your TV, because your DVD player > doesn't recognise avi files. So there are some advantages to using > DVDs for showing your movies, particularly for home use and with > screens no larger than, say, 32" time and use a DVD of my final [roject as the "deliver" medium. > I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs Or for people that don't want to do extensive editing. YMMV.> and recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the > video so that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see > much wrong with DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to > project the results on to very large screens! Mike "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message DVD camcorders have improved a lot, see for example this review of a 3CCD news:50ca3mF1fgnr9U1@mid.individual.net... snip > I've edited a lot of miniDV footage that has been displayed on 8' x 10' > (or > larger) projection screens. The quality of the projector and, to a lesser > extent, the screen, are the critical factors here. Having a decent 3 chip > camcorder doesn't hurt either :-( DVD camcorder: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-VDR-D300-Camcorder-Review.htm It says in the above that: "At 3000 lux, the Panasonic VDR-D300 showed an exceptionally sharp picture – sharpness approached that of the top-end MiniDV PV-GS500. Yes, that is the comparison we’re making. Of course, it’s not quite as good, but it’s sharper than any DVD camcorder we’ve seen before."
Show quote
"Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message The PV-GS500 is most definitely not a top-end machine. It's a mid-range news:45a160ae$1@clear.net.nz... > > "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message > news:50ca3mF1fgnr9U1@mid.individual.net... > snip > >> I've edited a lot of miniDV footage that has been displayed on 8' x 10' >> (or >> larger) projection screens. The quality of the projector and, to a >> lesser >> extent, the screen, are the critical factors here. Having a decent 3 >> chip >> camcorder doesn't hurt either :-( > > DVD camcorders have improved a lot, see for example this review of a 3CCD > DVD camcorder: > > http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-VDR-D300-Camcorder-Review.htm > > It says in the above that: > > "At 3000 lux, the Panasonic VDR-D300 showed an exceptionally sharp > picture - sharpness approached that of the top-end MiniDV PV-GS500. Yes, > that is the comparison we're making. Of course, it's not quite as good, > but it's sharper than any DVD camcorder we've seen before." machine introduced by Panasonic in an attempt to cash-in on the 3ccd market. A VX2100 (or Canon XL2) is a top-end machine, and neither the VDR-D300 or the PV-GS500 remotely approach the video quality of these machines. Moreover this subjective judgment is meaningless -- sharpness is measured in lines of resolution. What are they for the VDR-D300? What about artifacting, which are inevitable with single-pass, on-the-fly transcoding? And, finally, note that 3000 lux is encountered outdoors on a bright, sunny day. What happens under less brightly lit conditions? Show quote > > >
Show quote
"Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message news:45a0a085@clear.net.nz... It depends on what you mean by, "satisfactorily edit." It's not possible to > > "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message > news:50b9msF1fcmgcU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> mak***@gmail.com wrote: >>> I am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions >>> regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs. >>> >>> 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few >>> minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing >>> the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next >>> recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon brands? >>> >>> Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on >>> normal DVD players etc? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your help. >>> >>> Mak. >> >> >> IMO, DVD camcorders should never have been allowed to come to market. >> If all you ever want to do with it is shoot and archive, be my guest. >> If you any thoughts of doing editing though, buy a miniDV camcorder >> instead >> and save yourself a lot of grief. >> >> Mike > > However, it's still possible to satisfactorily edit video that is not on > miniDV, satisfactorily edit DVD video if you want to do significant color correction, compositing, elaborate transitions, etc. > I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory card of a You must have a pretty crappy miniDV camcorder, then. Commercial DVDs have > friend's digital still camera. The results were surprisingly good for > viewing on a relatively small screen. But not so good if you want to > project the film on to a 100 inch screen with a video projector. Even my > miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) doesn't go too well on very large > screens, it's not as good as commercial DVDs, for example. a data rate limited to under 10 megabits per second, whereas DV-25 (which is the standard use by miniDV) has a data rate 2.5 times as great. > DVD camcorders do single-pass on-the-fly transcoding. Producing an mpeg > People say that you need to use miniDV for the best results, but they then > go and make a DVD of their film and compress a 12 gig file down to 4 gig. > After all, it's convenient to make a DVD of your results so that you can > get the benefit of chapters etc. But to get the full benefit of miniDV, > IMHO, after editing, you need to make an avi file, not an mpg file. As > soon as you make an mpg file for use on a DVD, you have compressed your > video considerably, so the final result wouldn't be much better than > editing video that was taken on a DVD camcorder. file from a DV-codec-encoded AVI can be done in software, can be multiple-pass, not constrained to real-time, etc. Yes, the end result is the same amount of compression. The quality of the video will vary dramatically. > The difference between a DV-codec-encoded avi and a DVD are visible on my 9" > And then if you want to play your avi file back, you need to connect your > computer or your camcorder to your TV, because your DVD player doesn't > recognise avi files. So there are some advantages to using DVDs for > showing your movies, particularly for home use and with screens no larger > than, say, 32" monitor. > Provided these people also don't have any interest in doing editing beyond > I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs and > recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the video so > that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see much wrong with > DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to project the results on to > very large screens! simple cuts and don't care about the quality of the result. Show quote > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message I don't think Sony would like my 3.0 megapixel miniDV handycam referred to news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >> I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory card of a >> friend's digital still camera. The results were surprisingly good for >> viewing on a relatively small screen. But not so good if you want to >> project the film on to a 100 inch screen with a video projector. Even my >> miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) doesn't go too well on very >> large screens, it's not as good as commercial DVDs, for example. > > You must have a pretty crappy miniDV camcorder, then. Commercial DVDs > have a data rate limited to under 10 megabits per second, whereas DV-25 > (which is the standard use by miniDV) has a data rate 2.5 times as great. as "crappy"! The point I was making is that, to get the full benefit of the miniDV format, it is best not to substantially compress your video so that it will fit, for example, on to a 4.7gig DVD. I think most users would agree that there is a difference in the quality of a movie that is played direct from an avi file, compared with a movie that is played from a DVD after compressing the avi file substantially. Nevertheless, many miniDV camcorder users are happy to compress their video substantially and watch it from DVDs, so top end DVD camcorders that also produce video on DVDs might also be acceptable to such people. For example, see the review of this DVD camcorder: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-VDR-D300-Camcorder-Review.htm New camcorder buyers might also find this article to be helpful: http://www.easycamcorders.com/content/Beginners-Guide.htm Jim S wrote:
Show quote > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message Sony may not but, apparently, it is. 3.0 megapixel refers to a> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... > > >> I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory card of a > >> friend's digital still camera. The results were surprisingly good for > >> viewing on a relatively small screen. But not so good if you want to > >> project the film on to a 100 inch screen with a video projector. Even my > >> miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) doesn't go too well on very > >> large screens, it's not as good as commercial DVDs, for example. > > > > You must have a pretty crappy miniDV camcorder, then. Commercial DVDs > > have a data rate limited to under 10 megabits per second, whereas DV-25 > > (which is the standard use by miniDV) has a data rate 2.5 times as great. > > I don't think Sony would like my 3.0 megapixel miniDV handycam referred to > as "crappy"! high-density sensor for the purpose of _still_imaging_. The higher density has virtually no effect on _video_ quality and results only in lowering the low-light sensitivity of the camera. "High density ccds" is marketing hype only. > The point I was making is that, to get the full benefit of the Agreed.> miniDV format, it is best not to substantially compress your video so that > it will fit, for example, on to a 4.7gig DVD. > I think most users would agree And a properly-authored DVD, transcoded using a high-quality program> that there is a difference in the quality of a movie that is played direct > from an avi file, compared with a movie that is played from a DVD after > compressing the avi file substantially. > > Nevertheless, many miniDV camcorder users are happy to compress their video > substantially and watch it from DVDs, so top end DVD camcorders that also > produce video on DVDs might also be acceptable to such people. like tmpgenc or Ligos, will look dramatically better than one produced by the single-pass, on-the-fly hardware transcoder found in a DVD camcorder. There is also far more to video quality than compression format and transcoder -- lens quality and electronics also come into the picture. DVD camcorders are, without exception, bottom-of-the-line consumer machines intended for casual shooters who don't want to know anything about the technology of video and are interested, primarily, in shooting video of the kids that they can send to grandma and grandpa. These cameras have small sensors, poor glass, and the cheapest electronics that will create the image. This is not to say that there aren't crappy, bottom-of-the-line miniDV machines, too, but unlike DVD camcorders, there are miniDV machines that range all the way up to professional quality -- feature films have been shot with miniDV. > For example, Robin Liss tends to like everything that is sent to her for review.> see the review of this DVD camcorder: > > http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-VDR-D300-Camcorder-Review.htm The problem with camcorderinfo is it doesn't really distinguish between target market -- it assumes all consumers are the same. Show quote > > New camcorder buyers might also find this article to be helpful: > > http://www.easycamcorders.com/content/Beginners-Guide.htm
Show quote
"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message DVD camcorders are now recording in high definition TV. For example, see news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... > The difference between a DV-codec-encoded avi and a DVD are visible on my > 9" monitor. > >> >> I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs and >> recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the video so >> that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see much wrong with >> DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to project the results on >> to very large screens! > > Provided these people also don't have any interest in doing editing beyond > simple cuts and don't care about the quality of the result. > here about the Sony HDR-UX1E : http://tinyurl.com/yeeowv I think the quality of the result of this camcorder would be very good. Sony says that: "AVCHD is a revolutionary High Definition digital camcorder format for recording 1080i and 720p signals using MPEG-4 AVC and Dolby Digital 5.1ch or Linear PCM for video and audio codecs. Play back your footage on a HDTV, compatible DVD players and PC DVD drives with the bundled Player for AVCHD software." DVD camcorders are getting better, and I would be quite happy to own this camcorder, even though I have owned miniDV camcorders for several years. Sure, I don't have a professional editing interest, but for home use, holidays, and the family, I don't think many people would be dissatisfied with the results of the new high definition DVD camcorders. And I'm sure such people would also be happy with the editing capabilities provided by these HD DVD camcorders. There must be a solid market for these DVD camcorders, otherwise why would Sony (and others) keep selling them and even produce HD DVD camcorders? Cheers, Jim
Show quote
"Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message AVCHD isn't, at this point, supported by many (if any) editing packages. news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... > > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... > >> The difference between a DV-codec-encoded avi and a DVD are visible on my >> 9" monitor. >> >>> >>> I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs and >>> recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the video so >>> that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see much wrong >>> with DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to project the >>> results on to very large screens! >> >> Provided these people also don't have any interest in doing editing >> beyond simple cuts and don't care about the quality of the result. >> > > DVD camcorders are now recording in high definition TV. For example, see > here about the Sony HDR-UX1E : > > http://tinyurl.com/yeeowv > > I think the quality of the result of this camcorder would be very good. > Sony says that: > > "AVCHD is a revolutionary High Definition digital camcorder format for > recording 1080i and 720p signals using MPEG-4 AVC and Dolby Digital 5.1ch > or Linear PCM for video and audio codecs. Play back your footage on a > HDTV, compatible DVD players and PC DVD drives with the bundled Player for > AVCHD software." Sony has also arbitrarily limited the data bandwidth to between 15 and 17 mbps, compared with 25 mbps for HDV. The current crop of AVCHD camcorders have significant artifact problems (for that matter, so do Sony's consumer HDV camcorders, and for the same reason). The manufacturer's specs are provided for marketing purposes and don't provide any real insight into the relative quality of the video. > You might. I wouldn't be. I've held off moving to HDV because, as of yet, > DVD camcorders are getting better, and I would be quite happy to own this > camcorder, even though I have owned miniDV camcorders for several years. there isn't an HDV equivalent of my VX2000. I certainly wouldn't consider AVCHD until (1) the format is supported by the editing packages that I use, and (2) the bandwidth constraints are removed so that the severe artifacts that currently exist are considerably mitigated. > Sure, I don't have a professional editing interest, but for home use, Ah, it's "good enough." The problem is, your "good enough" isn't the same > holidays, and the family, I don't think many people would be dissatisfied > with the results of the new high definition DVD camcorders. as other people's good enough. The current crop of AVCHD camcorders are the high-def equivalent of the bottom of the line miniDV and DVD camcorders, i.e. intended for shooting the kids birthday parties, etc., without regard for video quality. I don't have a professional editing interest, however I do have a strong interest in producing quality amateur video for my own purposes. Obviously, I'm not the only one -- someone is buying all those VX2100s. > And I'm sure such people would also be happy with the editing capabilities Right now, there is no editing capability.> provided by these HD DVD camcorders. > There must be a solid market for these DVD camcorders, otherwise why would Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales of > Sony (and others) keep selling them and even produce HD DVD camcorders? their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent. Show quote > > Cheers, Jim > I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a number
of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, and features which make market sense by creating real differences which separate these buyers / market segments. Smarty Smarty Show quote "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message > news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >> > Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales of > their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" machines that > produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they took the TRV900 > off the market, they replaced it with the far less capable TRV950 -- it > didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was loaded with the kind of > gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the kid's birthday" set. The > TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that functioned at the prosumer > level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 competed with the PD150/170, but > for about $1,000 less. Sony lost sales of its more expensive line of > prosumer/low-end professional machines, so it has decided not to market an > HD equivalent. > >> >> Cheers, Jim >> > > The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does
exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's SD prosumer line. Show quote "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... > I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a number > of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is my belief > that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in fact the FX1 > sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the TRV900 did, > lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining excellent performance > at a relatively low price. Further, I think the stratification of their > product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other pro HD formats creates > further distinctions in pricing, performance, and features which make > market sense by creating real differences which separate these buyers / > market segments. > > > Smarty > > Smarty > > > > > > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message >> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >>> >>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >>> >> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales of >> their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" machines >> that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they took the >> TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less capable >> TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was loaded with >> the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the kid's birthday" >> set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that functioned at the >> prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 competed with the >> PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost sales of its more >> expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional machines, so it has >> decided not to market an HD equivalent. >> >>> >>> Cheers, Jim >>> >> >> > > Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than the
$1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900 was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in price than the FX1 currently. Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the FX-1 with its' higher resolution. I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise level, resolution, and optical performance. It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no value in improving the ultimate picture quality. I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich colors and superb detail. The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video". I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on vacation. Smarty Show quote "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net... > The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does > exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I also > think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who care > about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you a > crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid and > useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still > capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, > though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's SD > prosumer line. > > > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message > news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a >> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is my >> belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in fact >> the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the TRV900 >> did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining excellent >> performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the >> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other pro >> HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, and >> features which make market sense by creating real differences which >> separate these buyers / market segments. >> >> >> Smarty >> >> Smarty >> >> >> >> >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... >>> >>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message >>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >>>> >>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales of >>> their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" machines >>> that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they took the >>> TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less capable >>> TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was loaded with >>> the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the kid's >>> birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that functioned >>> at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 competed with >>> the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost sales of its more >>> expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional machines, so it has >>> decided not to market an HD equivalent. >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, Jim >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Smarty wrote:
> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the Optical performance? Do you mean it has a better lense?> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. I have not used the VX2100 very much but I > did own the VX2000, and the Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several > respects, including noise level, resolution, and optical performance. I am curious about this issue-- which gives you "better" video: a cheap, basic, HDV camcorder, or an expensive DV camcorder? It seems logical to me that the cheap HDV gives you "better" video, in the same way that a cheap 35mm still camera would probably give you a better image than the best ever Kodak pocket camera. On the other hand, I've never seen any camcorder approach the VX2000 in the quality of low-light images. Does the FX-1? So maybe it depends on what you mean by "better". I know a 35mm print looks much "better" than a 16mm print. In that sense, is the HDV camcorder "better"? I also know that a Scorcese movie looks "better" than a Bruckheimer movie. Is a VX2000 image more aesthetically pleasing than a HDV image? Show quote > > It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks which > add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no value in > improving the ultimate picture quality. I must say, however, that I recently > returned from a cruise into the Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of > footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV camcorder, and the outdoor videos were > stunningly beautiful with rich colors and superb detail. The still image > functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my TRV900, VX, and > other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video taken with this $1100 > camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy consumer machine with > relatively poor video". I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I > did not want to take it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it > around when on vacation. "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than > the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900 > was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a > lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in > price than the FX1 currently. more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement. > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was unable > Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the > FX-1 with its' higher resolution. with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range that addresses these issues, I'll consider it. > I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light > Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise > level, resolution, and optical performance. performance make the camera a non-starter for me. > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors.> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks > which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no > value in improving the ultimate picture quality. > I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed, it > Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV > camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich > colors and superb detail. is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera. > The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines > TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video > taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy > consumer machine with relatively poor video". with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though it might turn out nice video, even stunning video _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. There's no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to, as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD. > I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra > it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on > vacation. batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera, either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does. Show quote > > > Smarty > > > > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net... >> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does >> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I also >> think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who care >> about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you a >> crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid and >> useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still >> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, >> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's SD >> prosumer line. >> >> >> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message >> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... >>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a >>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is >>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in >>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the >>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining >>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the >>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other pro >>> HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, and >>> features which make market sense by creating real differences which >>> separate these buyers / market segments. >>> >>> >>> Smarty >>> >>> Smarty >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> >>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message >>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >>>>> >>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales >>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" >>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they >>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less >>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was >>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the >>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that >>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 >>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost >>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional >>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, Jim >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and closely
follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by John Beale at: http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published camcorder tests. Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle (at 11 lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000. I would agree that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not enough to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show very little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed on the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it. Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex scenes, when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, and normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should reflect this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms anyway, so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown. The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently discontinued in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not substantially worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor situations. For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly to much more expensive HD alternatives. It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use today in electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows. I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and above can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own notion of what acceptable standards are. All considered, the old maxim that "It isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad shots are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce bad results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies look so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element IMHO. Smarty Show quote "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net... > > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message > news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than >> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900 >> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a >> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in >> price than the FX1 currently. > > The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably > more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement. > >> >> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the >> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. > > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was > unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my > TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range > that addresses these issues, I'll consider it. > >> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the >> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise >> level, resolution, and optical performance. > > That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light > performance make the camera a non-starter for me. > >> >> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks >> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no >> value in improving the ultimate picture quality. > > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors. > >> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the >> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV >> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich >> colors and superb detail. > > That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed, > it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My > TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong > horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera. > >> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my >> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video >> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy >> consumer machine with relatively poor video". > > I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines > with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I > like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm > talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though > it might turn out nice video, even stunning video > _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. There's > no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to, > as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD. > >> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take >> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on >> vacation. > > I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra > batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in > order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've > gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera, > either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher > form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does. > >> >> >> Smarty >> >> >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net... >>> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does >>> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I >>> also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who >>> care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you >>> a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid >>> and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still >>> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, >>> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's >>> SD prosumer line. >>> >>> >>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message >>> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... >>>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a >>>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is >>>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in >>>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the >>>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining >>>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the >>>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other >>>> pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, >>>> and features which make market sense by creating real differences which >>>> separate these buyers / market segments. >>>> >>>> >>>> Smarty >>>> >>>> Smarty >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >>>>>> >>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> >>>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales >>>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" >>>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they >>>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less >>>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was >>>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the >>>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that >>>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 >>>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost >>>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional >>>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, Jim >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > Smarty wrote:
> My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and closely I'll take a look at the test results when I return from China. I don't> follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by John > Beale at: > > http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html have reliable internet because of the Taiwan earthquake's disruption of undersea telecommunications cables. However, I know John Beale -- I find his tests reliable. > That's very encouraging.> as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published camcorder > tests. > > Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle (at 11 > lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000. > I would agree If they're that close on low-light, I may have to take another look at> that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not enough > to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct > comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show very > little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed on > the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it. the FX1. > How does it do a on a mixed scene, i.e. static and moving elements,> Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only > under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex scenes, > when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, and > normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should reflect > this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms anyway, > so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown. e.g. moving traffic, etc.? > I have no problem with HDV, per se. My concern is the artificial> The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently discontinued > in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not substantially > worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light > performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor situations. > For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive > prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly to > much more expensive HD alternatives. bandwidth limitations imposed by Sony for marketing, rather than technical, reasons. > That's true. However, my definition of "acceptable" for SD precludes> It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use today in > electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use > where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer > Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows. > > I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and above > can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own notion > of what acceptable standards are. anything currently on the market below the VX2100. > All considered, the old maxim that "It That's quite true, but the same argument can be made for any format. I> isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad shots > are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce bad > results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies look > so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element IMHO. want the primary limitations on what I shoot to be my own level of artistic competence, and not an artificially-imposed technical limitation. Because I do travel video, I need to be able to shoot in low-light, both indoors and at night, shoot subjects with strong verticals (buildings, etc.), and do this without the ability to control lighting or other environmental factors. I edit the finished result and need to be able to readily correct color, occasionally do post-production stabilization, composite, do 1/3 titles, etc. That eliminates, at least for the moment, any ACHDV machine. I will take another look at the FX1. Show quote > > Smarty > > > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message > > news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com... > >> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than > >> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900 > >> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a > >> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in > >> price than the FX1 currently. > > > > The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably > > more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement. > > > >> > >> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the > >> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. > > > > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was > > unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my > > TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range > > that addresses these issues, I'll consider it. > > > >> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the > >> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise > >> level, resolution, and optical performance. > > > > That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light > > performance make the camera a non-starter for me. > > > >> > >> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks > >> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no > >> value in improving the ultimate picture quality. > > > > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors. > > > >> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the > >> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV > >> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich > >> colors and superb detail. > > > > That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed, > > it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My > > TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong > > horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera. > > > >> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my > >> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video > >> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy > >> consumer machine with relatively poor video". > > > > I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines > > with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I > > like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm > > talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though > > it might turn out nice video, even stunning video > > _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. There's > > no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to, > > as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD. > > > >> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take > >> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on > >> vacation. > > > > I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra > > batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in > > order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've > > gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera, > > either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher > > form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does. > > > >> > >> > >> Smarty > >> > >> > >> > >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > >> news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does > >>> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I > >>> also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who > >>> care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you > >>> a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid > >>> and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still > >>> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, > >>> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's > >>> SD prosumer line. > >>> > >>> > >>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message > >>> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... > >>>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a > >>>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is > >>>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in > >>>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the > >>>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining > >>>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the > >>>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other > >>>> pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, > >>>> and features which make market sense by creating real differences which > >>>> separate these buyers / market segments. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Smarty > >>>> > >>>> Smarty > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message > >>>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... > >>>>>> > >>>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales > >>>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" > >>>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they > >>>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less > >>>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was > >>>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the > >>>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that > >>>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 > >>>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost > >>>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional > >>>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, Jim > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > I hope you have a safe and productive trip, and that the Pacific earthquake
and aftermath have passed without problems for you and others in that region. Regarding Beale's results, and my own, the FX1 is ultimately a less sensitive camera than the VX2000, but does well in low light, to some extent by using "gain-up" to trade sensitivity for noise. To my eyes, the results are very good. In yesterday's mail, I received the February issue of Videomaker magazine, which did a review of the newer FX7 which included a comparison to the VX2100. This issue is now on the newsstands, so you might find it interesting to peruse. To quote a couple pertinent comments from the review (which starts on page 16): "Pulling the FX7 from the box, I am reminded of the SD model it replaced, the DCR-VX2100. The body style is identical and the controls appear to be in the same place".........."We're very pleased with the color and sharpness on the HD monitor. It performs well in low light situations, much like the predecessor VX-2100". As you can probably predict, the review is quite favorable, and the 3 strengths listed for the camera were: **Light weight **Good low light performance **20X optical zoom As regards artifacting, I don't see where any bandwidth limitations whatsoever have been imposed by Sony for marketing reasons for the HDV format. The miniDV recording approach they chose uses an effective tape writing speed which is the same as standard DV video, and it appears that they fill the tape to the same capacity with the same data rate. This data rate in turn imposes a 25 Mbit/sec recording rate limitation on the mpeg2 encoder output. Had they chosen to encode a higher sensor data rate, they could have developed / used alternative encoder approaches which achieve higher compression ratios, or they could have abandoned the miniDV format entirely, but doing so creates a set of new and more unattractive outcomes. It would appear that they (wisely) chose the format to preserve SD and HDV interoperability during the transition from SD to HD consumer / prosumer use. And rather than devise yet another new magnetic tape recording format and media, or resort to older and larger formats with higher writing speeds / data rates, or encoders with truly deficient performance (such as used in the AVCHD approach), they seemed to make a conservative and properly balanced approach. Perhaps the credit for all of this may truly belong to engineers at JVC, who, after all, did the real spade work for HDV (albeit 720p). My conclusion / opinion is that HDV merely leveraged existing and highly popular miniDV and retained downward compatibility with DV while achieving a very significant increase in resolution / bandwidth using a proven, well-supported mpeg2 compression method. To answer your question regarding fast moving subjects, I can only offer a subjective opinion. The FX1 does well but not exceptionally in handling complex, moving content. I will admit that it is a compromise format which shows its' weakness in this area under stress. Visual perception and display technology will hide some of this, since moving objects viewed naturally already seem blurred and most (recent non CRT) displays add their own smearing / artifact effects. But compared to really pristine film or true pro HD gear, the HDV material does look comparatively worse. Not unlike the experiences we have had comparing two-pass VBR encoded SD material versus real-time encoded single-pass MPEG2, there ***is a penalty*** for creating / encoding the HDV mpeg2 stream in real time. Until the processing power and chip designs progress to the point where the camcorder can either capture a less compressed (true HD) format or apply better compression on the fly, this is the price we currently must pay for having so much resolution, so little time, and so little storage capacity to store it. Obviously, the trends are going in the right direction for truly faster / better compression algorithms, storage, etc. I hope you might take a look at the HDV camcorders when you have chance. Sony and Canon have been busy in the last year, and the product offerings have improved both in number and in performance. Again, I hope your travels are without travail.... Smarty <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message Show quote news:1168737857.454938.320220@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... > > Smarty wrote: >> My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and >> closely >> follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by >> John >> Beale at: >> >> http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html > > I'll take a look at the test results when I return from China. I don't > have reliable internet because of the Taiwan earthquake's disruption of > undersea telecommunications cables. However, I know John Beale -- I > find his tests reliable. > > >> >> as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published >> camcorder >> tests. >> >> Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle (at >> 11 >> lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000. > > That's very encouraging. > >> I would agree >> that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not >> enough >> to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct >> comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show very >> little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed on >> the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it. > > If they're that close on low-light, I may have to take another look at > the FX1. > >> >> Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only >> under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex scenes, >> when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, and >> normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should >> reflect >> this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms >> anyway, >> so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown. > > How does it do a on a mixed scene, i.e. static and moving elements, > e.g. moving traffic, etc.? > > >> >> The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently >> discontinued >> in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not >> substantially >> worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light >> performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor >> situations. >> For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive >> prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly >> to >> much more expensive HD alternatives. > > I have no problem with HDV, per se. My concern is the artificial > bandwidth limitations imposed by Sony for marketing, rather than > technical, reasons. > >> >> It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use today >> in >> electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use >> where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer >> Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows. >> >> I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and >> above >> can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own >> notion >> of what acceptable standards are. > > That's true. However, my definition of "acceptable" for SD precludes > anything currently on the market below the VX2100. > >> All considered, the old maxim that "It >> isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad shots >> are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce >> bad >> results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies >> look >> so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element >> IMHO. > > That's quite true, but the same argument can be made for any format. I > want the primary limitations on what I shoot to be my own level of > artistic competence, and not an artificially-imposed technical > limitation. Because I do travel video, I need to be able to shoot in > low-light, both indoors and at night, shoot subjects with strong > verticals (buildings, etc.), and do this without the ability to control > lighting or other environmental factors. I edit the finished result > and need to be able to readily correct color, occasionally do > post-production stabilization, composite, do 1/3 titles, etc. That > eliminates, at least for the moment, any ACHDV machine. I will take > another look at the FX1. > >> >> Smarty >> >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net... >> > >> > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message >> > news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> >> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher >> >> than >> >> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the >> >> TRV900 >> >> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for >> >> a >> >> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different >> >> in >> >> price than the FX1 currently. >> > >> > The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was >> > considerably >> > more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement. >> > >> >> >> >> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer >> >> the >> >> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. >> > >> > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was >> > unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my >> > TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range >> > that addresses these issues, I'll consider it. >> > >> >> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the >> >> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise >> >> level, resolution, and optical performance. >> > >> > That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light >> > performance make the camera a non-starter for me. >> > >> >> >> >> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks >> >> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of >> >> no >> >> value in improving the ultimate picture quality. >> > >> > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors. >> > >> >> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the >> >> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 >> >> HDV >> >> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich >> >> colors and superb detail. >> > >> > That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, >> > indeed, >> > it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My >> > TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have >> > strong >> > horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera. >> > >> >> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on >> >> my >> >> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video >> >> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy >> >> consumer machine with relatively poor video". >> > >> > I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer >> > machines >> > with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What >> > I >> > like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video >> > (I'm >> > talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, >> > though >> > it might turn out nice video, even stunning video >> > _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. >> > There's >> > no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure >> > to, >> > as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD. >> > >> >> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to >> >> take >> >> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on >> >> vacation. >> > >> > I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra >> > batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make >> > in >> > order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've >> > gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a >> > camera, >> > either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher >> > form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Smarty >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net... >> >>> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it >> >>> does >> >>> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I >> >>> also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs >> >>> who >> >>> care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets >> >>> you >> >>> a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of >> >>> stupid >> >>> and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital >> >>> still >> >>> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less, >> >>> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes >> >>> Sony's >> >>> SD prosumer line. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message >> >>> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com... >> >>>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a >> >>>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It >> >>>> is >> >>>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and >> >>>> in >> >>>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as >> >>>> the >> >>>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining >> >>>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think >> >>>> the >> >>>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other >> >>>> pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance, >> >>>> and features which make market sense by creating real differences >> >>>> which >> >>>> separate these buyers / market segments. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Smarty >> >>>> >> >>>> Smarty >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message >> >>>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut >> >>>>> sales >> >>>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur" >> >>>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when >> >>>>> they >> >>>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less >> >>>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was >> >>>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot >> >>>>> the >> >>>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that >> >>>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100 >> >>>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost >> >>>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional >> >>>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Cheers, Jim >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message Thanks. The only earthquake related problems here are for news:98idnYdsKKjaKTTYnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@adelphia.com... >I hope you have a safe and productive trip, and that the Pacific earthquake >and aftermath have passed without problems for you and others in that >region. telecommunications. Normally, I can get a decent internet connection back to the States when I'm in China -- at least good enough to VPN to my home and firm, check email, etc. This trip, it's been horrible -- most of the time, I can't reach any non-Asian sites, including my Usenet newsgroup provider, who is in Germany. Show quote > Ah, I see another 5 years ahead, lugging around a camera that I'll always > Regarding Beale's results, and my own, the FX1 is ultimately a less > sensitive camera than the VX2000, but does well in low light, to some > extent by using "gain-up" to trade sensitivity for noise. To my eyes, the > results are very good. In yesterday's mail, I received the February issue > of Videomaker magazine, which did a review of the newer FX7 which included > a comparison to the VX2100. This issue is now on the newsstands, so you > might find it interesting to peruse. To quote a couple pertinent comments > from the review (which starts on page 16): > > "Pulling the FX7 from the box, I am reminded of the SD model it replaced, > the DCR-VX2100. The body style is identical and the controls appear to be > in the same place".........."We're very pleased with the color and > sharpness on the HD monitor. It performs well in low light situations, > much like the predecessor VX-2100". wish was a little smaller and ligher. I've developed a reasonably good shooting technique with this form factor, though, so the FX7 might be a possibility. > Light weight is, I guess, relative. Low light performance is very important > As you can probably predict, the review is quite favorable, and the 3 > strengths listed for the camera were: > > **Light weight > **Good low light performance > **20X optical zoom to me, so this is good to hear. My VX2000 only has 10x optical zoom, and I can't even handhold that, so I'm not sure what use the 20x zoom might be to me. Still, at least it's a true "feature" and not one that degrades performance. > It's not the HDV format per se, which has a max throughput of 25 mbps. From > As regards artifacting, I don't see where any bandwidth limitations > whatsoever have been imposed by Sony for marketing reasons for the HDV > format. what I've read, Sony has limited the bandwidth to between 12 and 17 mpbs, depending on the camera. I'm not sure whether they did this with either the FX1 or FX7, and I can't browse the internet now to look up the specs. I know Sony's done that with its ACHDV camcorder. The only reason for limiting bandwidth in this fashion was to ensure that the camcorders didn't compete with Sony's higher-priced line -- there was no technical reason to do so. Show quote > The miniDV recording approach they chose uses an effective tape writing As I said, I have nothing against HDV per se, and if the FX series encode at > speed which is the same as standard DV video, and it appears that they > fill the tape to the same capacity with the same data rate. This data rate > in turn imposes a 25 Mbit/sec recording rate limitation on the mpeg2 > encoder output. Had they chosen to encode a higher sensor data rate, they > could have developed / used alternative encoder approaches which achieve > higher compression ratios, or they could have abandoned the miniDV format > entirely, but doing so creates a set of new and more unattractive > outcomes. It would appear that they (wisely) chose the format to preserve > SD and HDV interoperability during the transition from SD to HD consumer / > prosumer use. And rather than devise yet another new magnetic tape > recording format and media, or resort to older and larger formats with > higher writing speeds / data rates, or encoders with truly deficient > performance (such as used in the AVCHD approach), they seemed to make a > conservative and properly balanced approach. Perhaps the credit for all of > this may truly belong to engineers at JVC, who, after all, did the real > spade work for HDV (albeit 720p). My conclusion / opinion is that HDV > merely leveraged existing and highly popular miniDV and retained downward > compatibility with DV while achieving a very significant increase in > resolution / bandwidth using a proven, well-supported mpeg2 compression > method. the full 25 mpbs rate, then the output should be more than enough for my purposes. My undestanding, though, was that at least some of Sony's HDV (and its AVCHD machines) encode at much lower data rates. > I'll just have to look at some sample video. I do a lot of tracking shots, > To answer your question regarding fast moving subjects, I can only offer a > subjective opinion. The FX1 does well but not exceptionally in handling > complex, moving content. I will admit that it is a compromise format which > shows its' weakness in this area under stress. Visual perception and > display technology will hide some of this, since moving objects viewed > naturally already seem blurred and most (recent non CRT) displays add > their own smearing / artifact effects. But compared to really pristine > film or true pro HD gear, the HDV material does look comparatively worse. and many of my shots have people and vehicles moving through them -- I'll have to see if the FX1 is up to the task. > My bet is that the on-the-fly encoding algorithms can be improved. If mpeg2 > Not unlike the experiences we have had comparing two-pass VBR encoded SD > material versus real-time encoded single-pass MPEG2, there ***is a > penalty*** for creating / encoding the HDV mpeg2 stream in real time. > Until the processing power and chip designs progress to the point where > the camcorder can either capture a less compressed (true HD) format or > apply better compression on the fly, this is the price we currently must > pay for having so much resolution, so little time, and so little storage > capacity to store it. Obviously, the trends are going in the right > direction for truly faster / better compression algorithms, storage, etc. is capable of near-artifactless motion compression with multipass, it's just a question of improving the hardware encoders. That's why I was planning to wait to move to HD (or HDV) for at least another year. > Based on your report, I'll certainly take a closer look. Thanks.> I hope you might take a look at the HDV camcorders when you have chance. > Sony and Canon have been busy in the last year, and the product offerings > have improved both in number and in performance. > Thank you. It's been a great trip so far. I've been through the Huang Shan > Again, I hope your travels are without travail.... mountains (spectacular), a couple of well-preserved ancient towns (Xi Di and Hong Chun), and now Harbin. We've been based in Shanghai where I did no shooting -- all my video has been on the road, and I've been averaging about one hour of raw video a day (which, for me, is quite a lot). I measure the success of a trip by how long I spend editing -- I've got at least a month or two ahead of me, which means its been a great trip. ;) Show quote > > Smarty > > > <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message > news:1168737857.454938.320220@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com... >> >> Smarty wrote: >>> My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and >>> closely >>> follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by >>> John >>> Beale at: >>> >>> http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html >> >> I'll take a look at the test results when I return from China. I don't >> have reliable internet because of the Taiwan earthquake's disruption of >> undersea telecommunications cables. However, I know John Beale -- I >> find his tests reliable. >> >> >>> >>> as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published >>> camcorder >>> tests. >>> >>> Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle >>> (at 11 >>> lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000. >> >> That's very encouraging. >> >>> I would agree >>> that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not >>> enough >>> to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct >>> comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show >>> very >>> little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed >>> on >>> the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it. >> >> If they're that close on low-light, I may have to take another look at >> the FX1. >> >>> >>> Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only >>> under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex >>> scenes, >>> when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, >>> and >>> normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should >>> reflect >>> this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms >>> anyway, >>> so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown. >> >> How does it do a on a mixed scene, i.e. static and moving elements, >> e.g. moving traffic, etc.? >> >> >>> >>> The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently >>> discontinued >>> in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not >>> substantially >>> worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light >>> performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor >>> situations. >>> For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive >>> prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly >>> to >>> much more expensive HD alternatives. >> >> I have no problem with HDV, per se. My concern is the artificial >> bandwidth limitations imposed by Sony for marketing, rather than >> technical, reasons. >> >>> >>> It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use >>> today in >>> electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use >>> where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer >>> Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows. >>> >>> I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and >>> above >>> can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own >>> notion >>> of what acceptable standards are. >> >> That's true. However, my definition of "acceptable" for SD precludes >> anything currently on the market below the VX2100. >> >>> All considered, the old maxim that "It >>> isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad >>> shots >>> are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce >>> bad >>> results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies >>> look >>> so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element >>> IMHO. >> >> That's quite true, but the same argument can be made for any format. I >> want the primary limitations on what I shoot to be my own level of >> artistic competence, and not an artificially-imposed technical >> limitation. Because I do travel video, I need to be able to shoot in >> low-light, both indoors and at night, shoot subjects with strong >> verticals (buildings, etc.), and do this without the ability to control >> lighting or other environmental factors. I edit the finished result >> and need to be able to readily correct color, occasionally do >> post-production stabilization, composite, do 1/3 titles, etc. That >> eliminates, at least for the moment, any ACHDV machine. I will take >> another look at the FX1. >> >>> >>> Smarty >>> >>> >>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message >>> news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net... >>> > >>> > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message >>> > news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com... >>> >> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher >>> >> than >>> >> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the >>> >> TRV900 >>> >> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts >>> >> for a >>> >> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different >>> >> in >>> >> price than the FX1 currently. >>> > >>> > The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was >>> > considerably >>> > more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer >>> >> the >>> >> FX-1 with its' higher resolution. >>> > >>> > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was >>> > unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my >>> > TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range >>> > that addresses these issues, I'll consider it. >>> > >>> >> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and >>> >> the >>> >> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise >>> >> level, resolution, and optical performance. >>> > >>> > That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light >>> > performance make the camera a non-starter for me. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks >>> >> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of >>> >> no >>> >> value in improving the ultimate picture quality. >>> > >>> > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small >>> > sensors. >>> > >>> >> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the >>> >> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 >>> >> HDV >>> >> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich >>> >> colors and superb detail. >>> > >>> > That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, >>> > indeed, >>> > it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My >>> > TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have >>> > strong >>> > horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel >>> > camera. >>> > >>> >> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were >>> >> on my >>> >> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video >>> >> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a >>> >> "crappy >>> >> consumer machine with relatively poor video". >>> > >>> > I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer >>> > machines >>> > with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. >>> > What I >>> > like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video >>> > (I'm >>> > talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, >>> > though >>> > it might turn out nice video, even stunning video >>> > _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. >>> > There's >>> > no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure >>> > to, >>> > as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD. >>> > >>> >> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to >>> >> take >>> >> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on >>> >> vacation. >>> > >>> > I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra >>> > batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to >>> > make in >>> > order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've >>> > gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a >>&g | |||||||||||||||||||||||
