TRV950 -- various questions

Tom Hardwick · February 8th, 2004, 02:05 AM

You say the GL2 lacks progressive scan, but so too does the TRV950. Another loss in the move from TRV900.

Frank Granovski · February 8th, 2004, 05:20 AM

Quote:

But how does it affect your results, the final video?

Shooting in frame mode or progressive (frame mode is progressive---they're are both capturing frames), the final video when played back in fields will look slightly choppy, with movement in the footage. In other words, interlaced looks smooth or natural, progressive shot footage played back interlaced does not look as smooth or natural (with movement in the footage).

Tommy Haupfear · February 8th, 2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

You say the GL2 lacks progressive scan, but so too does the TRV950. Another loss in the move from TRV900.

I personally wouldn't call 15fps progressive scan much of a loss on the TRV950 but I do prefer the TRV900 to the TRV950 (sans PDX10).

Ming Dong · February 8th, 2004, 07:20 AM

This is a bit off topic, but the GL2 brochure states that "the GL2 includes a 16:9 recording mode, which applies an electronic anamorphic stretch..."

Is that simiilar to the capability of the pdx10?

Frank Granovski · February 8th, 2004, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Does it blur when shooting action sequences?

Only if you pan/tilt/zoom too fast. :-))

Quote:

Does it require better lighting?

Not to my knowledge.

Quote:

(Remember, I shoot indoors with available lighting).

Then you should be looking at cams with bigger CCDs, cams that don't require as much light as the small chip'd ones.

Kenn Jolemore · February 8th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Frank is on the mark here. The bottom line is you will not be all to happy with either of these camcorders and should look at cam's with a minimum of 1/3"CCD's due to your subject matter.
KennJ

Tommy Haupfear · February 8th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Is that simiilar to the capability of the pdx10?

Its similar in the fact that it applies an anamorphic squeeze to get the 16:9 footage to tape but it lacks the increased angle of view and has noticeably less resolution than the PDX10 16:9 mode.

Here is an illustration of how the PDX10 achieves its quality 16:9

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg

Here is a great link on how camcorders achieve 16:9 either by letterbox or an anamorphic squeeze.

http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

Christine Allen · February 23rd, 2004, 03:10 PM

I just purchased a brand new TRV950. I connected it to my mac via ilink cable and my computer does not recognize the camera.

(I have a PD100 that works perfectly w/the cable and my computer)

I went to the Apple store and to B&H and neither place could get the computer to recognized the camera.

Has anyone else had problems with this? Is the iLink port broken on my camera or has Sony made it so the Mac video editing software no longer works.

Before I called Sony, I wanted to put this out and see if anyone has any suggestions.

Thanks.

Boyd Ostroff · February 23rd, 2004, 04:37 PM

Sure sounds like a camera problem; you did the correct tests and found the same computer could recognize another camera using the same cable, and another computer couldn't recognize the camera.

There are plenty of people using the TRV-950 and its sibling the PDX-10 with FCP on the Mac. Does everything else work properly with the camera? Have you tried pressing the RESET button (on the PDX-10 it's under the LCD screen next to the zebra switch)?

Patricia Kim · February 24th, 2004, 03:59 PM

You may also want to try checking out the iMovie discussion forums, where the issue of various cams not being recognized by iMovie comes up: apple/discussions/iMovie. Sometimes it actually depends on at what point you turn on or attach the cam; seems to vary from cam to cam, believe it or not.

Jeff Nield · March 13th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Hello,

I'm looking to sell my PD150 which I bought for a film project that is since completed. I find the PD150 too bulky and conspicuous to use on a regular basis.

I'm interested in hearing opinions comparing the two cameras, other then the obvious differences of no timecode or XLR inputs.

Also, is there an hours meter on the 950 like there is on the PD150, I'm thinking about buying used.

Thanks for any advice.

Jeff

Mike Moncrief · March 13th, 2004, 11:21 AM

Hello,

Myabe take a look at the PDX-10 also.. You will then have XLR inputs, 16:9 ,DVCAM and a very nice camera in a small package..

Mike M.

Boyd Ostroff · March 13th, 2004, 01:22 PM

I'd second Mike's comments. The PDX-10 has all those features that I'm sure you've come to like on the PD-150. I don't think the 950 will have an hour meter but the PDX-10 does and you can set timecode. The XLR box is removable for those times you want to be inconspicuous. but it still records through builtin mikes like the 950.

Jeff Nield · March 13th, 2004, 01:33 PM

Thanks for the feedback. So, my next question is: When buying a used camera what is a generally accepted amount of hours. I assume that "taoe run" hours are the most important. Is that correct?

Tom Hardwick · March 22nd, 2004, 02:45 AM

I agree that the move from the 150 to the 950 will be a big backwards step, and that the PDX10 is a more logical move. The 950 doesn't have an hours meter, no. Tape run hours are one thing, but in the engineering world of tape transport, keeping running is a simple operation. It's the lacing, unlacing, loading, unloading that demand so much of a mechanical system. It's a chain of events that has to be set into synchronous motion.

Moving to a 950 will make you wonder where all your wide-angle coverage has gone, as well as all the light. Nice side-screen though, with clever party-pieces like touch operation. It's three menus deep even on the side-screen!

tom.

February 8th, 2004, 08:20 AM	#111
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	Frank is on the mark here. The bottom line is you will not be all to happy with either of these camcorders and should look at cam's with a minimum of 1/3"CCD's due to your subject matter. KennJ __________________ KennJ

February 23rd, 2004, 03:10 PM	#113
Christine Allen Tourist Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 1	TRV950 not recognized by iMovie or FCP I just purchased a brand new TRV950. I connected it to my mac via ilink cable and my computer does not recognize the camera. (I have a PD100 that works perfectly w/the cable and my computer) I went to the Apple store and to B&H and neither place could get the computer to recognized the camera. Has anyone else had problems with this? Is the iLink port broken on my camera or has Sony made it so the Mac video editing software no longer works. Before I called Sony, I wanted to put this out and see if anyone has any suggestions. Thanks.

March 13th, 2004, 10:54 AM	#116
Jeff Nield Tourist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 2	"downgrade" from PD150 to TRV950 Hello, I'm looking to sell my PD150 which I bought for a film project that is since completed. I find the PD150 too bulky and conspicuous to use on a regular basis. I'm interested in hearing opinions comparing the two cameras, other then the obvious differences of no timecode or XLR inputs. Also, is there an hours meter on the 950 like there is on the PD150, I'm thinking about buying used. Thanks for any advice. Jeff

March 13th, 2004, 11:21 AM	#117
Mike Moncrief Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: orlando florida Posts: 426	Hello, Myabe take a look at the PDX-10 also.. You will then have XLR inputs, 16:9 ,DVCAM and a very nice camera in a small package.. Mike M. __________________ Mike Moncrief mikemoncrief@gmail.com www.themikemoncrief.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 8th, 2004, 02:05 AM	#106
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You say the GL2 lacks progressive scan, but so too does the TRV950. Another loss in the move from TRV900.

February 8th, 2004, 07:20 AM	#109
Ming Dong Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 92	This is a bit off topic, but the GL2 brochure states that "the GL2 includes a 16:9 recording mode, which applies an electronic anamorphic stretch..." Is that simiilar to the capability of the pdx10?

February 23rd, 2004, 04:37 PM	#114
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Sure sounds like a camera problem; you did the correct tests and found the same computer could recognize another camera using the same cable, and another computer couldn't recognize the camera. There are plenty of people using the TRV-950 and its sibling the PDX-10 with FCP on the Mac. Does everything else work properly with the camera? Have you tried pressing the RESET button (on the PDX-10 it's under the LCD screen next to the zebra switch)?

February 24th, 2004, 03:59 PM	#115
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	You may also want to try checking out the iMovie discussion forums, where the issue of various cams not being recognized by iMovie comes up: apple/discussions/iMovie. Sometimes it actually depends on at what point you turn on or attach the cam; seems to vary from cam to cam, believe it or not.

March 13th, 2004, 01:22 PM	#118
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I'd second Mike's comments. The PDX-10 has all those features that I'm sure you've come to like on the PD-150. I don't think the 950 will have an hour meter but the PDX-10 does and you can set timecode. The XLR box is removable for those times you want to be inconspicuous. but it still records through builtin mikes like the 950.

March 13th, 2004, 01:33 PM	#119
Jeff Nield Tourist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 2	Thanks for the feedback. So, my next question is: When buying a used camera what is a generally accepted amount of hours. I assume that "taoe run" hours are the most important. Is that correct?

March 22nd, 2004, 02:45 AM	#120
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree that the move from the 150 to the 950 will be a big backwards step, and that the PDX10 is a more logical move. The 950 doesn't have an hours meter, no. Tape run hours are one thing, but in the engineering world of tape transport, keeping running is a simple operation. It's the lacing, unlacing, loading, unloading that demand so much of a mechanical system. It's a chain of events that has to be set into synchronous motion. Moving to a 950 will make you wonder where all your wide-angle coverage has gone, as well as all the light. Nice side-screen though, with clever party-pieces like touch operation. It's three menus deep even on the side-screen! tom.