Sony miniDV Camera Consideration - Opinions needed!

[TRILIGHT]

Ok, I will admit up front that I am "DV Stupid". I do not really know a lot about it outside of the bit of work I've done backing up DVD's. I am thinking about purchasing a miniDV camera though.

I've always been very pleased with the technology, quality, and reliability of Sony products I've owned. That's why I've thought about concentrating on Sony cameras. I own a Sony CyberShot F707 still camera and the quality is EXCELLENT. I feel that sticking to a Sony that uses the same "M" series battery might be an advantage for me.

Anyway, the two models I've been looking at are the TRV38 (~$899) and the TRV80 (~$1500). Now, needless to say, there is a big price difference here. The main differences I've noticed from the Sony website are the following:

Imaging Device:
TRV80 - 1/3.6'' Advanced HAD™ CCD Imager, 2110K Pixels Gross
TRV38 - 1/4.7'' Advanced HAD™ CCD Imager, 1070K Pixels Gross

Video Actual Resolution:
TRV80 - 1080K Pixels
TRV38 - 690K Pixels

Still Actual Resolution:
TRV80 - 1,920K Pixels
TRV38 - 1,000K Pixels

Also, there is Bluetooth on the TRV80 but I really don't care about that. I'm concerned with quality of picture and ease of use in editing and ultimately sending to DVDR. Now I know many would say "more is better" but I'd like to get the best return on my investment. I do not understand why the pixels listed are almost twice as much for the TRV80 yet both are listed as having around 520 lines of resolution.

If anyone has some pointers, I would really appreciate the info. Also, I'm not TOTALLY dead set on a Sony if there is ultimately a better miniDV product out there for the price. Any help the "DV Gurus" out there could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

[TRILIGHT]

Well, I still don't have definitive info on the above but I found some more info which makes the decision even more interesting. Apparently the TRV80 has the ability to record 25fps progressive. It also appears to have the ability to record in "anamorphic" mode which allows for full quality in 16:9 mode instead of adding black bars like others do. The only problems I see now are A) do I want to drop $1500 instead of $900? and B) where would I get it considering Best Buy only seems to have the TVR38 in stock right now.

I'd still like to hear some comments from users experienced with working with DV material since I'm new to it all. I'd appreciate thoughts and experiences on editing and converting DV material to DVD MPEG2. Thanks!

[bb]

Hi TRILIGHT,

I'm afraid I don't know very much about the Sony products you have on your list. But I can assure you that progressive scan and anamorphic 16:9 are feature you won't want to miss very soon. I have a Canon MV-3, which has both options as well, so if you're not looking for Sony products only, this is a camcorder I can recommend (800.000 pixels resolution).

bb

[TRILIGHT]

So you have a Canon that has progressive and anamorphic recording? How do they work for you? Do you use them often? At this point, I'm not so sure that anamorphic will do me all that much good considering I do not have a widescreen TV right now. That leaves progressive recording. Can you help me understand the "real world" difference in the two? (regular interlaced DV vs. progressive) I picked up the TRV-38 tonight just to try it out. So far it seems very sweet and I have not even hooked it up to the PC yet. ;) I haven't had a chance to play with it while going through the manual yet.

[bb]

Yes, indeed. I shoot progressive video only, because I can easily encode to whatever I like (XviD/DivX, SVCD, DVD, etc.) without the hassle of deinterlacing or the wasted bitrate for interlaced encoding. In my opinion 25 fps progressive video is better than 50 fields per second interlaced. People say they get smoother movement using interlaced mode, but hey: film is 24 fps, shown as 25 fps on PAL TVs, and I've never heard anybody complaining that it looked jerky.

In the past my footage was 4:3 most of the time, but nowadays I prefer 16:9. On a 4:3 TV set you'll get black bars, but I have a 16:9 TV, and even if I hadn't I would probably still go for 16:9, because I believe that this is the future. If you ask me, you get more atmosphere in a 16:9 video, too, because 16:9 is more suitable to the human perception (horizontal viewing angle bigger than vertical).

In 16:9 mode your video will be a little blurrier, though. It's not really bad if you have an anamorphic mode, but if you have non-anamorphic only (cheap camcorders mostly, until lately Sony had nothing but this crappy mode for 16:9), better forget about 16:9 and stay with 4:3, because there's just too much quality loss.

bb

[TRILIGHT]

Thanks again for the info, bb! I have some e-mail in to Sony to inquire about the TRV80 but I am starting to believe the information I read on that website about it being progressive scan and anamorphic are incorrect. I could not find any information on the Sony website to confirm this. I'll have to wait and see what their product information group says.

As for the 16:9 modes, I agree. The "psuedo-16:9" modes that cameras like the TRV38 I got achieve this by "cheating" and it's not worth it. That's really not the biggest deal for me at this time though since I do not have a 16:9 TV and probably will not for another year or two. I'll buy a new camcorder at that time anyway.

My biggest concern here is for the progressive scan. I've read everywhere that it gives a "film like" quality to the video but I haven't the foggiest damn idea what the hell that means! ;) I am not a film student and I am not a professional photographer. I wish that I could SEE exactly what the difference is by using a regular miniDV and a progressive scan miniDV and then compare the results. I think (depending on what Sony has to say about the TRV80) that I might just need to stick with this camera and then run some smart deinterlacing on the video if I want to transfer to DVD.

On a side note, but related to DVD, could you recommend a high quality DV capture card that is supported in Adobe Premiere? I am far too spoiled by Premiere to use any company's "proprietary" software for capture/editing. Thanks again for your time and consideration, bb!

--[EDIT]--

Well, that was fast! I just received a reply from Sony's product information group. I want to post a quote from it for anyone else interested in the Sony TRV80 miniDV camera...

"The DCR-TRV 80 is the world’s first miniDV camcorders with two Megapixel resolution, giving rise to landmark improvements in image quality and functionality. The new model breaks new ground in the picture quality of still and moving images and add even more innovative features, including Progressive Recording Mode for cinematic style recording and an enhanced 16:9 mode.

The two Megapixel Advanced HAD CCD designed into the DCR-TRV 80 delivers an unprecedented level of image quality for DV camcorders. Sony has translated this technological advance into a range of desirable new features.

For the first time a cinematic quality to video recording can be achieved with the innovative Progressive Recording Mode. This is only possible thanks to two Megapixel technology and is a dramatic improvement over current progressive recording modes of around 15 frames per second. Almost the whole area of the two Megapixel CCD chip is used, maximizing the number of active net pixels and widening the recording angle of the lens by 14%. The benefits of this technology are significant. As well as achieving wider angle recording and a cinematic style, Progressive Recording Mode gives a better result when using footage on a computer, as PCs naturally work in progressive scan. Importantly, every single frame is free of interlacing artifacts, which before the advent of Progressive Recording was a major problem when printing single frames or playing back in slow motion.

The increasing number of users who record and play back material in 16:9 will welcome the news that Sony has also made significant improvements in this type of recording. The new 16:9 Mode achieves a much higher image quality with a 30% increase in resolution to 1094 x 615 pixels by reading a much wider, 16:9 shaped area of the CCD chip. Thanks to two Megapixel technology, the image stabilisation capabilities of SuperSteadyShot are preserved and, compared with conventional 16:9 recording, the process allows the maximum quality to be gained from the PAL TV standard. Sony 16:9 recordings are anamorphic and users have the option of playing back in letterbox style on a 4:3 monitor. This makes full use of the available television resolution and does not add black bars at the recording stage, which cannot be removed."


SO... It appears that it actually DOES have this functionality! Pretty cool indeed! Now I guess the biggest thing is if I feel that functionality is worth a price difference of $600. This goes back to the "real world results" that I just can't get. :( I would really appreciate it if you could give me some real-world information on how having this will help me, bb. I know that having the true anamorphic 16:9 is an advantage but I'm not certain I would benefit from it much at this time. The big thing is the progressive scan and what real world benefits I would gain from it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Is it really worth $600?? Thanks!!

[bb]

I'm not sure if I understand correctly what Sony claims: do they say that the TRV80 has 25 fps progressive or not (15 fps is crap, of course). And that they put it like they invented progressive scan (Canon has had this for years :devil: ).

Whether or not you're going progressive or not depends on what you are going to do with your video. If I had to choose again, I would buy a progressive camcorder again. But clearly: if you're going to create DVDs only, then you may be pleased with interlaced mode at the lower price.

By the way: if you're encoding for DVD, do not deinterlace, but encode interlaced instead. Better quality, and you've got the bitrate. For SVCD I'd always encode progressively, though, because there's not enough bitrate available for interlaced encoding (if you insist on interlaced encoding, CVD @ 352x576 might be a compromise).

Let me be the prophet just once: if you buy a cam without 16:9 support, you'll regret it in a year or two...

bb

[DBaT]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT

On a side note, but related to DVD, could you recommend a high quality DV capture card that is supported in Adobe Premiere? I am far too spoiled by Premiere to use any company's "proprietary" software for capture/editing.

At some point firewire cards with TexasInstrument chipset were prefered but I don't know if this is the case anymore.
I guess every firewire card that windows recognizes will work fine.
As for DV capture codecs there are some notes in sticky about them.

[TRILIGHT]

Originally posted by bb
I'm not sure if I understand correctly what Sony claims: do they say that the TRV80 has 25 fps progressive or not (15 fps is crap, of course). And that they put it like they invented progressive scan (Canon has had this for years :devil: ).

I think I said it in the other thread but Sony product info does not seem to have information on the fps of the progressive recording mode. I'm curious what the camera you have is capable of and how much you paid for it, bb. I just got finished reading some information on a website that reviewed a Panasonic camera and they had this to say...

"After all, the Panasonic AG-DVX100 is the first 24-frames-per-second progressive-scan DV camcorder available for $3,800. (Currently the next 24P camcorder price tag starts at around $60,000 and keeps going)."

I can't imagine that cameras in the $1000-1500 range are already capable of 24P. I'm starting to think that what I really want in a miniDV camera will not be available in the $1000 price range for another couple of years. By then, I will probably have a widescreen progressive scan TV and will be ready to send the "inferior" (Damn, didn't I just buy this thing for a cool grand? hehe) Sony TRV38 I have to it's new owner via eBay. :D

--[EDIT]--

Ok, now I'm even more confused. This is the information that Sony's product information group just gave me...

"Thank you for contacting us with your query regarding the DCR-TRV80 Mini DV camcorder.

The camcorder records at a rate of 25 progressive images per second and stores them as interlaced NTSC video."

At first look, this sounds GREAT! 25fps progressive! But..um..."stores them as interlaced NTSC video"? What the hell is that about? Sounds like a contradiction of sorts! LOL

[bb]

I have a Canon MV-3 MC, paid €1.100,- (must be cheaper now, if you can still get it). Progressive scan @ 25 fps (PAL).

How old is your Panasonic quote?

bb

[TRILIGHT]

Must be old info on that Panny considering Sony product info just told me the TRV80 is 25fps progressive and the unit is $1500. On that note, could you provide me with some "real world" info on what the effect is, bb? The best I've read is that it has a "film like" or "cinema like" quality. What the hell does that mean? The images I am seeing off the camera I have now seem sharp, colorful, and accurate. I'm not sure what the real-world effect would be if all of my video was recorded in progressive scan. Can you do the best you can to give me your interpretation of what the advantage/difference is? Thanks bb!!

[bb]

Well, I see it more from the technical side. Progressive material is much easier to handle - no deinterlacing thrills, no codec restrictions, no resizing restrictions, etc.

In my opinion the "film like look" is something you won't get from any DV camcorder. There's indeed a typical "DV look" you may notice when examining the edges, bright colors, etc. What people mean when they talk about a "film like look" is not about colors, grain, and so on, but about the way movement looks. 25 fps progressive is very close to the 24 fps progressive film, and it's just what PAL DVDs usually get converted to (but with a little speedup, which you don't have with DV camcorders).

I'd say it's like watching Hollywood movies on TV compared to watching truely interlaced video on TV. Not much of a difference if you ask me, but some people say movements are smoother in interlaced mode.

bb

[TRILIGHT]

As for "codec restrictions", I don't know anything about that yet. Have to get a cable and try. As for deinterlacing, I was under the impression that if the material was indeed pure interlaced that deinterlacing was unnecessary. I know that the MPEG video I extract from my DirecTiVo unit and put on DVD is pure interlaced. I can leave it as is and it plays back off of DVD just as it did on the TiVo originally.

This is something that obviously can't be done with some of the DV material on DVD extras when trying to make a backup. Most of that stuff is telecined and has to be deinterlaced or your in for a nice headache during playback. ;) Is there some reason I would want to deinterlace my DV material from the camera before encoding to MPEG2 for transfer to DVD? If it's pure interlaced, it shouldn't matter, right?

As for resizing restrictions, what are they? Referencing the interlaced TiVo stuff I've worked with, I have been able to resize it to make moving "chapter selections" in Adobe After Effects and it seems to play ok. Are there particular sizes I don't want?

I know you all may be getting a bit tired of my endless questions. I'm just trying to get as much information and experience as I can in a short period of time to make my ultimate decision of whether to keep the TRV38 that I got or take it back in about 11 days and go for the TRV80 that has anamorphic widescreen and progressive scan. I truly appreciate all the advice you've given me so far, bb! It's good to talk to someone who actually has these features and can comment on them. You say that you use progressive and widescreen all the time now, right? You never record in the regular 4:3 interlaced mode anymore? Anyway, as I mentioned before, the difference in price is $600 so it's a pretty big decision. I could get a wide angle lens and some nice software (Vegas 4 maybe?) for $600. hehe

[bb]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
As for "codec restrictions", I don't know anything about that yet.
I was talking about codecs not being able to handle interlaced sources. But there may be other restrictions like the 720x576 / 720x480 resolution of DV codecs.
As for deinterlacing, I was under the impression that if the material was indeed pure interlaced that deinterlacing was unnecessary. I know that the MPEG video I extract from my DirecTiVo unit and put on DVD is pure interlaced. I can leave it as is and it plays back off of DVD just as it did on the TiVo originally.
You can either deinterlace and encode progressively (saves bitrate) or encode interlaced (up to 30% more bitrate needed for the same quality, but no quality loss due to deinterlacing).
Be aware of the fact that DV is bottom field first if you encode interlaced.
This is something that obviously can't be done with some of the DV material on DVD extras when trying to make a backup.
:confused: Normally there's no DV material on DVDs... What are you talking about?
Most of that stuff is telecined and has to be deinterlaced or your in for a nice headache during playback. ;) Is there some reason I would want to deinterlace my DV material from the camera before encoding to MPEG2 for transfer to DVD? If it's pure interlaced, it shouldn't matter, right?
Telecined stuff has to be treated different from "truely" interlaced footage (e.g. DV shots). You need phase shifting or even IVTC, but not a real deinterlacer. E.g. if you use Decomb, then Telecide() is for telecined progressive video, whereas FieldDeinterlace() is for "truely" interlaced sources having a time difference between each of the fields.
As for resizing restrictions, what are they? Referencing the interlaced TiVo stuff I've worked with, I have been able to resize it to make moving "chapter selections" in Adobe After Effects and it seems to play ok. Are there particular sizes I don't want?You cannot simply resize interlaced video vertically without destroying the field structure. You have to split the fields first, resize each field individually, then weave it back together (can be done with AviSynth). The same applies to several other filters like spatial smoothers, etc., but temporal filters need frames again. There are filters, though, which can deal with interlaced video directly. I'd wish Tom Barry's SimpleResize would do it (Tom, do you hear me?).
You say that you use progressive and widescreen all the time now, right? You never record in the regular 4:3 interlaced mode anymore?
No interlaced mode anymore, sometimes 4:3 (but rarely, I guess I will drop it completely, but I'm still investigating on resolution loss when using 16:9 anamorphic mode).
I could get a wide angle lens and some nice software (Vegas 4 maybe?) for $600. hehe
Wide angle, ok, but don't buy a 16:9 anamorphic lens. As I've read it's a waste of money.

bb

[bira]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
I'm just trying to get as much information and experience as I can in a short period of time to make my ultimate decision of whether to keep the TRV38 that I got or take it back in about 11 days and go for the TRV80 that has anamorphic widescreen and progressive scan.


I have the TRV50. It has 1.5 mega pixels gross. It was the top of the line few months ago. I exclusively shoot 16:9. It has been said that this is not a true 16:9 camera, but when I play recorded footage on a 4:3 TV through s-video from the camera I get a fullscreen picture. That is, there is no black bars and the picture is stretched. Isn't that anamorphic? Black bars were not recorded!

Anyway, I would buy the TRV80 just for the true widescreen mode alone. Heck, if I could get to sell mine I'd buy a TRV80, right now!

As BB said, if you buy a cam without 16:9 support, you'll regret it in a year or two...

bira

[DDogg]

I'd wish Tom Barry's SimpleResize would do it
bb, did you try the special InterlacedResize function within Simple resize? I use it all the time on DV. Seems to work ok for me. Maybe I just misunderstood. If not,

Just use InterLacedResize(x,x) instead of SimpleResize(x,x)

His version for 2.5x doesn't support YV12 for InterLacedResize but that doesn't cause us any problems with DV source.

[bb]

Yes, I know, thanks DDogg,

although I didn't write that in my post I was referring to the AviSynth 2.5 SimpleResize (sometimes you think more than you write). I have upgraded to AviSynth 2.51 for other reasons - even DVD2SVCD supports it meanwhile.

Because I usually don't use interlaced mode I don't miss the InterlacedResize very much, and I can live with the workarounds when I need it. Now that I have a DVD burner I'll try interlaced mode vs. progressive mode again - but for DVD I don't need to resize...

Haha, I just wanted to point you to this thread when I saw that you found it already:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50423

bb

[TRILIGHT]

Thanks for the info on the TRV50, bira! Yes, if you are seeing the image as "squeezed" on 4:3 then that should definitely be anamorphic. Speaking of which, do you have a widescreen TV or do you just record that way and watch everything squeezed? hehe ;) I'm not sure how this would work out when I would do a transfer to DVD. I would think that as long as I encoded 16:9 that the DVD player would recognize it as anamorphic and would automatically add the black bars for me on a 4:3 screen.

See, I would really like to get the TRV80 if Best Buy sold it. I want the 4yr extended warranty. The thing could blow up and I'd get a new camera. ;) Most of the time these warranties are just a rip off but for a touchscreen LCD with delicate small parts on a portable piece of electronics?? That's just asking for something to go wrong. I haven't found it at a store like that though. Only online. Granted, it seems to be sold for about $1200 online instead of $1500. I'm just afraid of spending $1200 and having the damn thing get totally screwed up a year from now and I'll end up totally screwed. There is just no way in hell to repair some of these delicate units.

On a related note to the encoding stuff, I picked up a cable last night! I'm in-between places right now so my workstation is not hooked up. I tried running it through the laptop (P3 700, 448MB, 160GB external firewire drive) but it did not work well at all. I think it might be that the hard drive is only 5400RPM but it was dropping frames ALL OVER the place! I'm going to try to set up the workstation temporarily today to see if it makes any difference.

[bira]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
Thanks for the info on the TRV50, bira! Yes, if you are seeing the image as "squeezed" on 4:3 then that should definitely be anamorphic. Speaking of which, do you have a widescreen TV or do you just record that way and watch everything squeezed?


Wait. What I mean is "vertically stretched" and not "horizontally squeezed". Hummm, perhaps that's the difference... TRV80 must have a wider angle than the TRV50.

No, I don't have a widescreen TV, but I do have a projector. All of my shootings go to DVD format. As long as you encode as 16:9 and author as 16:9, it works just like a widescreen movie. Black bars if you have a 4:3 TV or fullscreen if you have a 16:9 TV.

About the extended warranty, the only thing I can say is that I bought a notebook at BestBuy and paid 20% more for the extended warranty. Never used it. Was it worth it? I don't know.

Check with your insurance company, maybe you can get (or already have) coverage for that kind of troubles.

[TRILIGHT]

For anyone following this thread, I finally got around to doing some testing with capturing and encoding for DVD. It's really not bad at all. I'm just still a bit torn because I know firsthand how fast and convenient MPEG encoding of progressive material is. (DVD backups. ;) ) The idea of being able to encode my DV material at over 2X realtime instead of sub-1X is definitely an attractive option.

That being said, the video I encoded (via deinterlacing in an AVIsynth script through CCE) came out looking pretty great! It's a damn hard decision going for the TRV80 or the TRV38 I currently have. With the TRV80, I know I would be getting screwed into paying for the Bluetooth tech when I know I'll never use it. The biggest deal at this point is just deciding whether I feel the anamorphic 16:9 and progressive recording is worth the $600 difference. I'll mull it over and keep you all informed. Thanks for everyone's opinions and assistance. If you have any thoughts, I'd like to hear them in the next few days. I have about a week left to make my final decision.

[Arky]

Ok, just to muddy the waters even more! :p :

http://www.supervideo.com/MXmouse.htm

http://www.supervideo.com/MX5000manuala.htm

I wish my Sony TRV900 was Progressive Scan. Aside from that, though, it is a great camcorder.


Arky ;o)

[TRILIGHT]

Originally posted by Arky
Ok, just to muddy the waters even more! :p :


Thanks Arky! You ASS! hehehe ;) That does look like a pretty sweet camera though. I think I'm going to stick with the TRV38 that I have now. It's just not worth the extra $600 to me right now. In a couple of years when I'm ready to upgrade, progressive scan recorders will be more commonplace and I'll be able to get something super nice for $1500. Encoding this interlaced material really isn't that bad. If I was running a service where time was more of a pressing issue for encoding, I would worry about it. I'm not though so I'll wait. Thanks to everyone who offered advice though! :)

[SomeJoe]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
Thanks for the info on the TRV50, bira! Yes, if you are seeing the image as "squeezed" on 4:3 then that should definitely be anamorphic.

Not exactly. :) It is definitely anamorphic, but not all anamorphic video is using the full 480 vertical pixels from the CCD.

The Panasonic VX2000 and the Canon XL-1 both do this to give you their "fake" 16:9. They only use the middle 720x360 pixels from the CCD, and then bicubic resize inside the camera to 720x480 before recording on tape. So yes, the video is anamorphic, but its not full resolution. Most older Sony's do something similar, but it's not exactly the same, but the net result is that they aren't full resolution, either.

The new Sony you're speaking of seems to advertise that it uses a larger area of the CCD when shooting 16:9. This is the "correct" way to shoot 16:9 anamorphic. But you will have to dig really deep to make sure that camera actually does this. Try this: When you flip the switch on the camera from 4:3 shooting mode to 16:9 mode, does the horizontal angle of view get wider? If so, then more of the CCD is being used, which is what you want.

As for the 25fps progressive, that's an impressive feature if indeed it actually has it. Most of the older DV cameras can only shoot 15fps progressive, if that's even an offered feature. But, unless you're making a PAL DVD, I don't know how you're going to encode 25fps progressive to an NTSC DVD. To my knowlege, no tools are available to set TFF/BFF flags for making 30fps out of 25. You might have to use the PAL->NTSC conversion script, which will lose a lot of the detail that the DV can provide.

For more information on DV and 16:9 shooting (as well as other topics), look at Adam Wilt's DV Page (http://www.adamwilt.com/DV.html). This guy has forgotten more about DV than most of us will ever know. ;)

Also, I replied to your other thread in the DVD encoding forum for info on encoding your DV to MPEG-2.

[bira]

Originally posted by SomeJoe
They only use the middle 720x360 pixels from the CCD, and then bicubic resize inside the camera to 720x480 before recording on tape.

I see. Thanks! :(

[kempodragon]

I just came back from Adam Wilt's DV page and I have only one thing to say: BRING AN OXYGEN MASK!! I had to come up for air several times before diving back in :0

[bb]

Originally posted by kempodragon
I just came back from Adam Wilt's DV page and I have only one thing to say: BRING AN OXYGEN MASK!! I had to come up for air several times before diving back in :0
What did the author intend to tell us? That we are all human beings and need the air to breath? That diving is a dangerous task? That we are all children of the universe, but we are flesh, not fish? :rolleyes:

You may have noticed that I don't appreciate such esoteric posts very much.

bb

[TRILIGHT]

For anyone curious, I decided to keep the TRV38. I've found that encoding the interlaced material using Canopus Procoder produces some really GREAT looking DVD's! I keep the ABR around 5000-6000 and the results are pretty impressive.

[Crawl]

How is the noise of the camera itself ?

I have a JVCDVL20 (pretty foreward camera) and i was looking
also alround for a new camera.

I was more looking for a 3ccd camera (i was told these give much better picturequality than the normal 1 ccd camera's)

And when i made a dv with this camera i get more and more frustrated of the cameranoise itself, so i was corrious of cameranoise of the TVR38..

Thanks..

Crawl (mod. at doom9.nl)

[TRILIGHT]

Originally posted by Crawl
...And when i made a dv with this camera i get more and more frustrated of the cameranoise itself, so i was corrious of cameranoise of the TVR38..

Absolutely silent as far as I can tell. I'm picky so I'm fairly certain that if there was any significant noise at all, my ears would have picked up on it rather quickly. The only thing is you'll probably have to get used to the zoom. It moves very fast. Once you're used to this though, you know just how much pressure to apply to the switch.

[Arky]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
Absolutely silent as far as I can tell. I'm picky so I'm fairly certain that if there was any significant noise at all, my ears would have picked up on it rather quickly. The only thing is you'll probably have to get used to the zoom. It moves very fast. Once you're used to this though, you know just how much pressure to apply to the switch.

You can buy some nice zoom controllers from a company that advertises in Computer Video - can't remember their name right now, but the whole point of these attachments (which plug into your Lanc jack) is that they give much smoother, and more accurate, control. Don't know how much they cost though. Probably not cheap! :eek:

On the subject of camera noise, my 900E does suffer a little from this, but nothing too drastic. Incidentally, I have watched TV broadcasts in the UK (Channel 4 for example) where they've used DV footage and the noise of the camera is absolutely BLATANTLY obvious (and intrusive). You'd think that for broadcast purposes they'd at least make a little effort to filter the high-frequency hum out...


Arky ;o)

[Crawl]

tnhkx

[benf2]

I too just bought the Sony trv38. I figure it will get me by til the one i really want comes down in price "JVC GR-HD1".....this baby is sweet!;)

The one thing i am curious about is what resolution is it capturing at? I see a menu that allows u to go between 320x240 or 160x112. So, what resolution are you converting yours to TRIGHLIGHT when putting it on DVD? I use NTSC.

Ben

[TRILIGHT]

The resolutions you are referring to are MPEG capture. This is not DV recording but just MPEG "clip" capture to the memory stick. The recording made to tape is the 720x480 you expect it to be. The MPEG capture feature is just to send a clip of something to someone or have a quick clip to post on a webpage or something. Don't bother recording anything this way. You can make MPEG clips from any portion of your videotape by simply setting an "in" and "out" point and then telling it to do an MPEG capture to the memory stick. It's a nice feature if you just want to send a short clip of something you taped to someone via e-mail. Anyway, I hope this clears things up for you.

[benf2]

yes, thanks!

[troy]

I would go with the cheap one. I got the trv25 and the videos are excellent. If you are going to spend that much extra money you might as well spend a little more still and go with a sony 3ccd model.

[benf2]

i got a good deal on my trv38....cost me $730.00..bought it this past saturday!...Still i am awaiting the release of the JVC GR-HD1...I dont seen any of the 3ccd models offering HD in that price range. But, i would have to wait for the price to drop into the 2k range first.

[midiguy]

The Canon MV-3 is the PAL version of the Canon GL-2 (NTSC). The MV-3 can record at 25 fps progressive (PAL), the GL-2 can record at 30 fps progressive (NTSC), but that Panasonic camera that you guys are referring to is currently the only minidv camera that can record at 24 fps progressive (NTSC). This will give a true "film" look, rather then that "home video" look. It's also suppose to be a great cam...

[TRILIGHT]

Originally posted by midiguy
...that Panasonic camera that you guys are referring to is currently the only minidv camera that can record at 24 fps progressive (NTSC).

If you'll notice the information I was given from Sony, the TRV-50 is a true progressive scan miniDV camera.

[midiguy]

Originally posted by TRILIGHT
If you'll notice the information I was given from Sony, the TRV-50 is a true progressive scan miniDV camera.

I'm not saying it isn't, but progressive scan does not mean 24 fps progressive scan. I did not know that the trv-50 is progressive scan, I thought the only Sony progressive scan model was the DCRVX2000 (the top of the line model), and it only records at 15 fps progressive (and has the option to go @ 30 fps interlaced as well).

But if the trv-50 is progressive scan, I am almost postiive that it isn't 24 fps, but is rather 30 fps (25 fps for PAL) or 15 fps.

[midiguy]

that panasonic quote was just saying that they are the only 24 FPS progressive scan minidv camera, which is true.