Sony TRV120 VS TRV320 VS , memorystick useful ?
Frederic
paper is the TRV120.
I know I will have to make or buy a cable to enable DV IN.
One question is, for an extra $150 here in France I can buy a TRV320 which
is if I read the specs well, a TRV120 plus memory stick.
What do memory sticks do ? I have heard different stories. For some they
allow better quality snapshots while for others the quality is exactly the
same as snapshots stored on tape but it is the transfer onto PC that is
simple and inexpensive.
My questions to you knowledgeable guys are :
- can I expect better quality snapshots with memory stick ?
- if yes, how much better ? would it be noticeable on a 640 * 480, 800 *
600, 1024 * 768 ... screen display ? what size of paper copy enlargement
would show a difference ?
There will be a firewire link between my TRV and PC for film editing
purposes anyway so the fact that memory sticks cost less to connect to PC
does not matter to me I think. So in case memory sticks do not improve
snapshots quality, I find I do not need to spend the extra money for it, and
I can stick to the TRV120.
Also how will my snapshots (with or without memory stick) compare with
analog camera snapshots, on a standard size basis ?
I mean, the main reason for me buying a TRV is not to take photographs but
it sounds good once I have one, to be able to take a lot of pics during
family gatherings, then choose a few good ones -if any- and send them for
professional printing... with the drawback that the quality will not allow
any enlargement.
any comments ?
Thanks,
Frederic
Jukka Aho
news:8egpf9$552$1...@news2.isdnet.net...
> Hi, I'm looking to buy a digital video camera and so far my
> favorite on paper is the TRV120. I know I will have to make
> or buy a cable to enable DV IN.
You can also enable other features with such a cable:
<http://195.119.173.92/set1394/anin/analog.html>
<http://195.119.173.92/set1394/anin/code.html>
<http://195.119.173.92/set1394/anin/adapter.html>
If you don't want to build the cable yourself, purchase one
from LynxDV:
<http://www.lynxdv.co.uk/> (the "PC95" product.)
There is also a mailing list for Digital8 camcorder owners:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/nibbit/d8/index.html>.
-- znark
Frederic
Jukka Aho <jukk...@iki.fi> a écrit dans le message :
8eh6kv$tbc$1...@haavi.uwasa.fi...
> There is also a mailing list for Digital8 camcorder owners:
> <http://home.wanadoo.nl/nibbit/d8/index.html>.
>
> -- znark
Thanks for the tip, I will register to that ml as well.
However I still haven't found whether the TRV320 would take better snapshots
than the TRV120.
I know that the only difference between them lies in the memorystick the
TRV320 comes with.
It (ms) makes sending stills to a PC is easier, but are thoses stills any
better ?
The only reason I can see why pics would be better, is that transferring
pics from the CCD to the ms must be faster than transferring them to tape,
therefore with the ms I would expect faster shutter speed, ...
Does that make any sense to anybody out there ?
Okay, that's a real newbie question, I know...
Thanks for your help,
Frederic
Jukka Aho
> I still haven't found whether the TRV320 would take better snapshots
> than the TRV120. I know that the only difference between them lies
> in the memorystick the TRV320 comes with. It (ms) makes sending
> stills to a PC is easier, but are thoses stills any better ?
I'm not sure about this, but I would believe they are of the same
quality as the stills recorded on the tape. I.e. the only benefit
you would get was the easier transfer to computer.
> The only reason I can see why pics would be better, is that
> transferring pics from the CCD to the ms must be faster than
> transferring them to tape, therefore with the ms I would
> expect faster shutter speed, ...
The shutter speed is not in any way related to the tape/memory
stick transfer speed. You can use very high shutter speeds
(1/50000 sec max if I recall correctly) also when recording
to the tape.
There might be a difference if it is possible to use the
pixels reserved for the Steadyshot function for the whole
picture, or if the stills are taken using progressive scan,
but I somehow don't believe this would be the case.
-- znark
415Man
Frederic <Frederic....@LibertySurf.fr> wrote in message
> Hi,
<snip>
I asked much the same question a couple of days ago, and got a very thorough
answer. Bottom line however was - you are not going to get photo quality
snapshots with any of these videocameras. As was pointed out to me, you
need roughly 1024x768 to get photo qual 5x7 pics, and even more for 8x10.
These camera's resolution falls far short. If you want printable qual
photos - buy a digital still frame camera. The camcorder may take snaps
good enough to email friends, or put on the web, but thats about it.
As for the memory stick, I dont think it has anything to do with the
quality. It may allow you to take a photo snap while simultaneously
shooting video, which you couldnt do without the stick (although I am not
100% sure on that one). It also gives you an option to get it into the PC.
correct me if I have gotten this wrong gurus.
Frederic
415Man <4...@man.com> a écrit dans le message : 390d4...@news.qnet.com...
>
>
> I asked much the same question a couple of days ago, and got a very
thorough
> answer.
Is there any way I could get hold of a copy of that message ?
> Bottom line however was - you are not going to get photo quality
> snapshots with any of these videocameras.
I know that, I will still have my good old camera for 'good' pics, I am just
trying to choose between TRV120 and TRV320.
Since tranferring pics onto computer is not an important issue for me I am
trying to find out whether the memory stick allows better pics as a
salesperson told me, but I cannot find any confirmation of this anywhere.
In another ng someone mentionned that on PC 100 the memory stick changes
greatly the quality since pics are 1024 on memory stick but only 640 on
tape.
Could it be the same ratio with TRVxxx ?
Thanks,
David
review of the new Panasonic NV-DS55 camera, .....
" The images printed from the MM Card are suprisingly good and printed
reasonably up to around A4 size, ...... The prints recorded to tape tended
to show more grain and less definition when printed."
Bear in mind that the Pansonic incorporates Progressive PhotoShot, and does
not compare to the interlaced sony. In conclusion the article seems to
suggest a difference in the quality of the shot if stored on some memory.
Frederic <Frederic....@LibertySurf.fr> wrote in message
news:8ejm26$12r7$2...@news5.isdnet.net...
bas...@aol.com
PC100 and avoiding the technical stuff - here is the simple answers.
Pictures using a memory stick are better than those taken to tape on the
PC100 ( you can do both)
The memory stick is convient - yet costly. Albeit it is somewhat slow
using the adapter but still very cost effective.
I also have a Cannon Ellan IIe and about another $800 worth of lenses etc
that takes incredible pictures. I almost always use the PC100.
Here is my plan - look at the pictures on the computer, print them out on
the HP 970 or better yet burn them to a CDRW and view them and movies on
my home DVD player (also a Sony).
Technical issues aside, It is very rare that I get a pic made larger than
4X6 or 5X7 which a 1 Megapixel can handle. If you get alot blown up - you
might want to go with a 2 or 3 megapixel.
For more technical info the DV guys did a review and the guy named znark
is brilliant - me I just know what works for me.
Best of luck
Jukka Aho wrote:
>
> "Frederic" <Frederic....@LibertySurf.fr> wrote in message
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
kmsa...@one.net
Jukka Aho wrote:
>
> "Frederic" <Frederic....@LibertySurf.fr> wrote in message
> news:8ehqqh$nhp$1...@news3.isdnet.net...
>
> > I still haven't found whether the TRV320 would take better snapshots
> > than the TRV120. I know that the only difference between them lies
> > in the memorystick the TRV320 comes with. It (ms) makes sending
> > stills to a PC is easier, but are thoses stills any better ?
>
> I'm not sure about this, but I would believe they are of the same
> quality as the stills recorded on the tape. I.e. the only benefit
> you would get was the easier transfer to computer.
>
> > The only reason I can see why pics would be better, is that
> > transferring pics from the CCD to the ms must be faster than
> > transferring them to tape, therefore with the ms I would
> > expect faster shutter speed, ...
>
> The shutter speed is not in any way related to the tape/memory
> stick transfer speed. You can use very high shutter speeds
> (1/50000 sec max if I recall correctly) also when recording
> to the tape.
>
> There might be a difference if it is possible to use the
> pixels reserved for the Steadyshot function for the whole
> picture, or if the stills are taken using progressive scan,
> but I somehow don't believe this would be the case.
>
> -- znark
Wouldn't it make sense that the method of storing the files would reduce
the quality? For example: Still images saved to a tape need to be
converted into an analog format prior to saving. This method would reduce
the quality of that photo to some extent (which I have no idea of). Still
images which are saved to a MemoryStick (MS) could be saved as a digital
picture and some Megapixel level and in JPEG format. This digital process
would preserve the quality of the photograph.
This is how I always pictured (no pun intended) it to be....Maybe I'm
wrong. Just a stab in the dark.
I too was wondering what the benefits of the memory stick were and am happy
to hear some viable responses... Though, it sounds like what we need to do
is purchase the TRV120 and a nice quality SLR camera.
- KMS
Jukka Aho
> Wouldn't it make sense that the method of storing the files
> would reduce the quality? For example: Still images saved
> to a tape need to be converted into an analog format prior
> to saving. This method would reduce the quality of that
> photo to some extent (which I have no idea of).
We are talking about Digital8 camcorders here, remember? :-)
D8 and DV camcorders store the images on the tape in digital
form. Those types of camcorders don't even _know_ how to
save anything analog on a tape... :)
> Still images which are saved to a MemoryStick (MS) could be
> saved as a digital picture and some Megapixel level and in
> JPEG format.
In theory, there might be some difference in image resolution,
since the DV data format limits all images saved to tape to
720x(480|576).
In practice, it is very unlikely that the manufacturer would
have put an expensive, oversized CCD chip inside just for the
still photographing capability.
However, maybe the memory stick images have been encoded
using weaker compression... or no compression at all?
-- znark
415Man
> Still images which are saved to a MemoryStick (MS) could be
> saved as a digital picture and some Megapixel level and in
> JPEG format.
In theory, there might be some difference in image resolution,
since the DV data format limits all images saved to tape to
720x(480|576).
In practice, it is very unlikely that the manufacturer would
have put an expensive, oversized CCD chip inside just for the
still photographing capability.
However, maybe the memory stick images have been encoded
using weaker compression... or no compression at all?
-- znark
Znark -
I am still confused on this issue as well -
If Sony has *not* put oversized CCD chips into the cameras (like the PC100 -
and the new TRV20 which I just ran across at:
http://www.dcresource.com/news_archives/mar00.html ) then how do these
miniDV cams supposedly shoot "megapixel stills"? Your assertation that all
stills taken with these camcorders will max at 720x(480|576) makes perfect
sense to me, since they *are* video cameras. So how is it that in the above
site, Sony says the cam will take "megapixel (1152x824) still photos"?
Can you, or anyone give me a clue?
Alan Quirt
Note that it is in a higher price range which might give Sony budget
enough for a bigger CCD, especially since the cost of that size CCD
should have been reduced by the popularity of megapixel still cameras.
Possibly they use all the pixels for still pictures, but reserve some
around the edges for Steadyshot motion compensation when doing video.
Extra pixels would also permit full vertical resolution in 16:9 mode
video. So it is not impossible that the camera has a million real pixels.
On the other hand they could be quoting an effective resolution after
doing clever interpolation between physical pixels. PC scanner
manufacturers use that trick in their ads all the time; you have to read
specs very carefully.
--
... Al Quirt ... heron...@sympatico.ca ...
... please remove antispam bird to reply ...
Paresh
Have look at sanps taken with trv320.. all are actual size.
www.rajkotcity.org/trv320
thanks
PAresh
Frederic wrote:
>
>
> Hi, I'm looking to buy a digital video camera and so far my favorite on
> paper is the TRV120.
> I know I will have to make or buy a cable to enable DV IN.
Paul Bartram
Paresh <paresh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sl4tqei...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi,
> Have look at sanps taken with trv320.. all are actual size.
> www.rajkotcity.org/trv320
> thanks
> PAresh
I have saved a couple of these (thanks!) for comparison with the results
from my TRV120. Thing is, can you confirm that your pictures are from
the memory stick and serial connector? If so I can make comments later
on the comparison to my stills which are analogue captures from paused
video.
Paul