Sony TRV900 vs. VX1000
Charles Pieters
At this moment I have a S-VHS edit equipment and I will start at tne
near future with DV.
My first thought was to buy the VX1000, but now with the arrival of the
TRV900, with new features, I am hesitating.
Is the image quality of the TRV900, with only 1/4" CCD's, as good as
this of the VX1000?
And what about the solidity.
thanks for your reply,
--
Charles Pieters
charles...@advalvas.be
Scott Bethel
John P. Beale
: At this moment I have a S-VHS edit equipment and I will start at tne
: near future with DV.
: My first thought was to buy the VX1000, but now with the arrival of the
: TRV900, with new features, I am hesitating.
: Is the image quality of the TRV900, with only 1/4" CCD's, as good as
: this of the VX1000?
: And what about the solidity.
This is a FAQ, I don't have a really good answer (I don't have a VX1000)
but I have some observations in my TRV900 FAQ at
http://www.best.com/~beale/trv900
I think the TRV900 quality is really good. Everyone I've heard from (two or
three people) who have done a direct comparison say the VX1000 picture
quality is better. I don't know how much better, though. The TRV900 is
reasonably well put-together. The fold-out LCD panel is susceptible to
damage when folded-out, but is not a liability if you use the viewfinder
instead. I haven't had any problems with the TRV900 yet, I've had it for
two months and used it for at least 10 events so far. The VX1000 was
intended for a more professional market and is probably more rugged, but
I'm just guessing.
-john
Charles Pope Jr.
I think money is the bottom line here. Sony would not continue (or be
able to continue) marketing the VX1000 at a substantially higher price
than the TRV900, if it didn't produce a superior picture. The only
video sources I have _ever_ seen which produced images substantially
superior to the VX1000 are DVD (at its best), Sony's high-end industrial
Digital Betacam format, and an all-digital, high-definition front
projector from Sony (9-inch CRT's) which I saw demoed about a year ago.
And even pitted against this formidable competition, the VX1000 remains
an impressive camera and a _very genuine_ bargain. (When the VX1000 was
introduced about three years ago more than one reviewer commented that
it equalled and sometimes surpassed existing industrial cameras costing
five to ten times its price.)
Can't comment further as I haven't yet tried the 900 -- or even Canon's
XL1 (reputed to be even better than the VX1000 [not surprising as (1) it
has interchangable lens capability and (2) it's more expensive]).
CPJ.
Tony Romano
acquisition device) compare to DVD (a recorded medium), and a video
projector (a display device).
Maybe the video projector was displaying an image played from a DVD player
of video that was captured with a VX-1000...
Tony
Charles Pope Jr. <charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<364E2A...@sympatico.ca>...
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> I think I am missing something here. How does a VX-1000 (a video
> acquisition device) compare to DVD (a recorded medium), and a video
> projector (a display device).
>
> Maybe the video projector was displaying an image played from a DVD player
> of video that was captured with a VX-1000...
Not beyond the realm of possibility, in fact!
Obviously, I was making a generalized and arguably simplistic
comparison. In video, the final image is only as good as the weakest
link in the chain of acquisition, recording/storage, display, and even
display environment and viewer knowledge.
Just to clarify where I'm coming from, it should be noted that the
VX1000, in addition to being an acquisition device is _also_ a
record/store/playback device and that I usually watch it on my XBR100,
on which I also watch DVD's.
The DVD's of course are derived from 35mm or 70mm film sources, not
video. However, in the context of storage/playback, DVD has quite a lot
in common with the DV format (which is the VX1000's format). Both are
digital component formats. DVD outputs video, sampling at 4:2:0 which
is comparable to the VX1000's 4:1:1 sampling (and identical to DV in PAL
which samples at 4:2:0).
The front projector I mentioned was fed by a high-definition,
digital/component industrial laserdisc. I don't know whether it was
sourced from film or a hi-def camera, though I'm inclined to think the
latter since the demo was intended to showcase what a high-end projector
could do with a _very_ high resolution video source.
And this comparison is not entirely inappropraite vis-a-vis the VX1000.
I've taken some outdoor footage with the camera using an additional
optical neutral density filter (Tiffen ND3) _on top_ of the camera's
built-in electronic ND filter. This _very_ substantially increased the
camera's exposure latitude (and resulting contrast range) and _also_
reduced noise. The result was footage which had a film-like quality
which astonished me, as essentially I was doing a test shoot on the
final Indian summer weekend just over a year ago. (The idea for the
extra dose of ND filtration came from reading "American
Cinematographer"'s coverage of "The English Patient" [which I now have
on DVD]).
CPJ.
> Charles Pope Jr. wrote:
> > I think money is the bottom line here. Sony would not continue (or be
> > able to continue) marketing the VX1000 at a substantially higher price
> > than the TRV900, if it didn't produce a superior picture. The only
> > video sources I have _ever_ seen which produced images substantially
> > superior to the VX1000 are DVD (at its best), Sony's high-end industrial
> > Digital Betacam format, and an all-digital, high-definition front
> > projector from Sony (9-inch CRT's) which I saw demoed about a year ago.
> > And even pitted against this formidable competition, the VX1000 remains
> > an impressive camera and a _very genuine_ bargain. (When the VX1000 was
> > introduced about three years ago more than one reviewer commented that
> > it equalled and sometimes surpassed existing industrial cameras costing
> > five to ten times its price.)
> >
> >
> > CPJ.
Andytejral
In article <3650F1...@sympatico.ca>, "Charles Pope Jr."
<charle...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>_on top_ of the camera's
>built-in electronic ND filter.
Not to downplay the rest of your post, but I'm fairly certain that the ND
filter is optical. The switch feels different and it would make sense that the
CCD cannot 'see' bright light very well. Pro cameras 537 and even M7 have an
optical ND filter for several settings: there are only two filter settings, the
others are ND levels
Yes/no?
Mark Robinson
by side in a poorly lit room in our production conference room. Both
cameras on auto did very well. I thought the colors looked a little better
on the TRV-900. More true to life. Obviously, the TRV-900 with its
progressive scan produced a better still. I think the 1000 could have done
better if it had progressive scan. They both read the lighting conditions
and set themselves almost exactly identical. Neither looked grainy at all
(the room wasn't that dark). Email me and I will send you several stills
that I captured from each camera. I have yet to do an extensive test in our
studio between the two cameras, but the bottom line is, would you need the
extra features of the 900 or would you prefer the more professional feel of
the 1000. They both take the same size filters and lenses.
Charles Pieters wrote in message <364DEA...@village.uunet.be>...
>hello,
>
>At this moment I have a S-VHS edit equipment and I will start at tne
>near future with DV.
>My first thought was to buy the VX1000, but now with the arrival of the
>TRV900, with new features, I am hesitating.
>Is the image quality of the TRV900, with only 1/4" CCD's, as good as
>this of the VX1000?
>And what about the solidity.
>
Charles Pope Jr.
Getting the definitive answer to this question may not be as easy as
we'd like. When I've mentioned this before, your question has arisen.
I only know that in mainstream reviews, the VX1000's built-in ND filter
has usually been described as 'electronic'. The camera's manual (page
41) doesn't specify electronic or optical. Sony, however, is notorious
for _not_ telling users everything they might wish to know about the
company's consumer video products.
I can mention that when I added the Tiffen ND3, the auto-exposure (which
I seldom use) was flumoxed and overexposed, producing a bleached look
(as if black level were too high). Shooting outdoors on a bright (very
clear sky) mid-October afternoon, I was limited to F8 or F9.6 for a
completely natural-looking picture. Anything more open was too
'whiteish'; F11 was OK only if I wanted a deliberately underexposed look
(like Freddie Young's day-for-night sequences in "Lawrence Of Arabia"
[complete with long shadows trailing the actors across the desert! (was
it the moon, perhaps?)] and "Ryan's Daughter" [Sarah Miles'
crotch-thru-nightie in silhouette]).
CPJ.
Graham Baker
>> >_on top_ of the camera's
>> >built-in electronic ND filter.
>>
>> Not to downplay the rest of your post, but I'm fairly certain that
the ND
>> filter is optical. The switch feels different and it would make sense
that the
>> CCD cannot 'see' bright light very well. Pro cameras 537 and even M7
have an
>> optical ND filter for several settings: there are only two filter
settings, the
>> others are ND levels
>>
>> Yes/no?
>
>
>Getting the definitive answer to this question may not be as easy as
>we'd like. When I've mentioned this before, your question has arisen.
>
>I only know that in mainstream reviews, the VX1000's built-in ND filter
>has usually been described as 'electronic'>
The answer is probably yes AND no.
If it's the same as the TRV900 then it's an optical filter that is
electronically activated.
The small 'ND filter' push button on the '900 operates a solenoid that
positions the ND filter into the light path.
You can hear the solenoid operate if you listen carefully.
I dare say that if you record the event with a high speed shutter and
play back a frame at a time you could probably see the filter sliding
into place.....
GB
R. Geoff Baker
lens and the chip block by sliding the switch on the front of the camera body.
An alternative 'ND' effect can be engaged using the menu system, and is
described as '-3db gain'.
Cheers,
GB
(hey Graham, one of us ought to change our sign-off style!)
ar...@freenet.carleton.ca
RGBaker.256BoltonSt.Ottawa.ON.Canada.K1N5B6
(ph)613-789-0650(cel)613-852-3833
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> The ND filter on the VX-1000 is optical, and is mechanically engaged between the
> lens and the chip block by sliding the switch on the front of the camera body.
> An alternative 'ND' effect can be engaged using the menu system, and is
> described as '-3db gain'.
Thanks, Geoff, for settling this question. Perhaps the reviews all
described the built-in filter as "electronic" because, presumably, some
sort of electronic circuit is still required to activate the mechanical
engagement!
I've also done quite a bit of shooting with the -3db gain setting, and
agree it is another useful feature. In direct testing, though, I did
find that the additional Tiffen ND3 was _more_ effective in literally
killing glare from dazzle-bright surfaces than the reduced gain. I
haven't tried Tiffen's ND6, mainly because I was so pleased with the
improvement created by the ND3 on top of the camera's built-in ND
filter, I haven't been motivated to push this envelope further. But I
may do so, if only out of curiosity.
CPJ.
Edward McShane
ND filter on the TRV900.
To further clarify for me: by on "top of" do you mean in "addition" to the built-in,
or, do you mean "in place of?" In other words, are you using BOTH filters at the same
time?
Another question: do you know the effect of using a polarizing filter on the TRV900?
In a few weeks I will be shooting ocean scenes in Hawaii from a kayack and on the
beach towards the ocean. Obviously there will be very bright light and a lot of glare
from the water. I expect many shots to include both water and sky, though some will
be only water (sea life in water: dolphins, whales, turtles, etc.).
I'd appreciate any advice you have to offer.
Ed
R. Geoff Baker
built in ND filter AND a circular polarizer - not the shape of the thing, but
rather the arrangement of the polarizing elements. Use of a linear polarizer
generates unpredictable results on my VX-1000. Consider a pro mist filter as
well, to soften the specular highlights. In my experience, you can stack three
filters on the front of the lens without much worry beyond the increased
likelihood of flare.
Monitor your exposure very carefully in full sun / ocean bright situations, as
over exposed DV material is truly unattractive. On the VX-1000 I have the
option of dialling in a predetermined 'underexposure' value, and leaving the
auto exposure active ... or even shooting manual, but with the predetermined
value set as the new target exposure.
Cheers,
GB
ar...@freenet.carleton.ca
RGBaker.256BoltonSt.Ottawa.ON.Canada.K1N5B6
(ph)613-789-0650(cel)613-852-3833
Edward McShane wrote in message <3653154F...@pacific.net>...
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> Charles, I'm fascinated by your use of the Tiffen ND3 filter on TOP of the built-in
> ND filter on the TRV900.
Actually, my camera is the VX1000 (not the TRV900), though I suspect
these units are quite parallel in their response to filters.
> To further clarify for me: by on "top of" do you mean in "addition" to the built-in,
> or, do you mean "in place of?" In other words, are you using BOTH filters at the same
> time?
I mean "in addition to" (yes, using both simultaneously). The VX1000's
built-in ND filter is relatively mild (I think it reduces overall light
entering the camera by about 10 percent), though a big help
nonetheless. Some optical ND filters reduce by as much as 80 percent
though, based on my reading to date, they are used more commonly for
film applications (still and motion) than video.
I believe there's still a lot for _all_ of us to learn in stretching
exposure latitude for video. See Geoff's follow-up post as well.
> Another question: do you know the effect of using a polarizing filter on the TRV900?
I haven't had much luck (?) using polarizers, though they _definitely_
reduce reflections if you're shooting through windows and other
transparent/reflective surfaces at an angle. Any basic textbook or
magazine article tells you this. But if you want a really good shot
through a store window (or whatever), it's preferable to determine the
time of day when the light will be at a favourable angle to illuminate
your key subject _without_ creating reflections in the glass.
Unfortunately, in the real world of production (never mind ENG!) this is
usually a non-affordable luxury.
I'm aware they are used a lot to make cloudy or hazy skies look more
blue, but I prefer to be patient and wait for the lighting and weather I
want, rather than fake it (which, I'm aware, on a tight production
schedule is often unavoidable). The few times I've tried polarizers
(circular and non-circular) skies became almost purple -- hideous and,
of course, completely inaccurate. This sort of smoke-and-(er)filters is
a lot easier to get away with in still photgraphy than motion. When a
major Hollywood film uses filters to manipulate an outdoor shoot, camera
motion is usually kept stationary or minimal, in order to simplify
exposure and related adjustments and keep the shot realistic.
With the continuing use of increasingly exotic CGI in mainstream movies,
it's now easier to accomplish some filter effects in post-production
than on location. I believe Tiffen has a software product that
replicates many of its filters' effects during editing.
Still, I do prefer to use filters and exposure/gain adjustments to
enhance and/or facilitate an already photogenic location, rather than
manipulate a lacklustre one.
> In a few weeks I will be shooting ocean scenes in Hawaii from a kayack...
Lucky you! (I have to settle for JPEG downloads from a cousin in Maui.)
> on the beach towards the ocean.
> Obviously there will be very bright light and a lot of glare from
> the water. I expect many shots to include both water and sky, though some
> will be only water (sea life in water: dolphins, whales, turtles, etc.).
Again, I'd say read Geoff's post and be prepared with _lots_ of
filters. If you have the time, experiment with different filter and
exposure/gain combinations, and be as fastidious as possible in accurate
white balancing (which, when possible, should be done _before_ you begin
adding filters [other than UV]). The TRV900 has the same 52mm filter
thread as the VX1000 and I know most of Tiffen's base filter array is
available in this size.
In case you haven't already been told, you should have a UV protector
filter _permanently_ attached to your camera. If it gets scratched or
otherwise damaged, it's a lot easier [and cheaper] to replace than a
damaged camera lens.
CPJ.
clev...@tc.umn.edu
> If my sony trv-900 had a proper handle than it would be better
> as its hard to pick up quickly
Yes !!!! I also wish It had a handle like the Sony VX-1000
Does anybody know of an after market solution to this problem?
Or maybe a home made attatchment that could screw into the tripod
threading on the bottom of the camera?
Thanks in advance for any responces :)
Kyle Cleven
pandaman
--
Regards,
Doug Graham
Panda Productions
Tony Romano
Cool-Lux Stable-Cam << http://www.cool-lux.com/stable.htm >>
I have not tried it, but it looks like it might do the trick...
Tony
clev...@tc.umn.edu wrote in article <365B6C...@tc.umn.edu>...
Neuman-Ruether
>Bas wrote:
>> If my sony trv-900 had a proper handle than it would be better
>> as its hard to pick up quickly
>Yes !!!! I also wish It had a handle like the Sony VX-1000
>Does anybody know of an after market solution to this problem?
>Or maybe a home made attatchment that could screw into the tripod
>threading on the bottom of the camera?
I'm fond of the flash-bracket handles made for 35mm (still ;-)
cameras... I use a big, hurky one for my VX-1000s (loosening the
bottom mounting screw to turn it for packing the camcorder) and
a folding one for my TRV-9 (removing and folding it for packing).
These give me a comfortable way to hold the camcorders when
they are not in use, and give me a bit more stability and control
when hand-holding while shooting video.
David Ruether
rue...@fcinet.com
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
Xtra7
good as the vx1000 and is rock solid. You can also get full res still
instead half res. it of course has analog inputs so you can also use
your SVhs material with your newdv sytem.
D Head