"Sony Surround Handycam DCR-HC1000 " successor to the TRV950?
 

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/DCR-HC1000/index.html

Looks interesting. I don't see anytjing about 16:9 so more like the 950.

1/4.7 inch chips

3 CCDs 1.07 million pixels, 690,000 for video

12x optical zoom

min lux 11

Besides super nightshot, looks like it has something called nightshot plus to allow color in this mode.

2.5 inch monitor

Don't read Japanese so excuse any errors

The 5.1 surround features seems interesting..

But where is the 5+1 tracks of audio information recorded?

How is it extracted to be used in your editing program?

Yeah, but . . .

The CCDs are still too small to provide good low-light response. Why do camcorder manufacturers think that the world is waiting for yet one more camera that can only take good video outdoors during the day?

Here's an English summary of the camera.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...0-05_10_04.htm

Some product shots:

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...000/parts.html

No word about 16:9 :-(

Actually yes there is, on the specs page at http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...1000/spec.html, it does say "High picture quality wide TV mode," I would take that to mean native 16:9 like the TRV950 had. That part is actually a link, and when you click on it and run it through BabelFish it says: "It corresponds to the playback with the large picture wide television, from angle of view to wide, it is possible to photograph in higher picture quality. When photographing, by the fact that the CCD territory which has been used for the one for hand blurring revision is utilized, from wide actualizing photographing with the angle of view. Furthermore it raises also the number of pixels by photographing in the big territory in comparison with system until recently, in comparison with former wide TV mode, it is possible improvement of picture quality to assure." So yeah, native 16:9.

I thought the TRV950, unlike the PDX10, didn't support native 16:9.

Young, read some older posts in this group, it has been discussed before. While the 950 does not use as many pixels as the PDX-10, it still has enough to provide the full 480 scan lines, unlike the PD-150 and 170.

We have made a lot of test with TRV940E (it's a PAL cam) - it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen.
http://www.videomax.ru/tests/index6.html

Only anamorphic lens can help this.
http://www.videomax.ru/tests/soligor/

Canon MVX3i (Optura Xi), Sony PC330 (partly) has more best 16:9 mode. PDX10 - an excellent.

All tests are in Russian, but you can use Babel Fish.

> it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen

Yes. Two interesting things here,

(1) The resolution of the TRV950's and the way it handles widescreen is barely enough for NTSC but not enough for PAL (higher vertical resolution in the latter). If you wree doing this test in NTSC the 950 wouldn't fare as bad.

(2) You can also see in all three cameras a difference in vertical and horizontal resolution, even in 4X3 mode. This is due to the vertical low pass filter. The only MiniDV camera which I know of that can turn of the VLPF is the Pana DXV100A.

Can the XM2 do frame mode and 16:9 at the same time? That should yield a much higher vertical resolution still!

Hello Mikhail

why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ?

the 1956 charts in 16:9 should be vertically cropped and not show the full circles and should also be set to the full width of the frame

also when testing you should gently tilt the camera to avoid pixel misalignment

I see - stupid translate machine can't do its job carefully.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Hello Mikhail
why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ? -->>>

It's my "know how" - EIA1956 with 16:9 dimension. Original postscript 4:3 image file have been rendered to high-resolution bitmap as 4:3 picture (standard aspect ratio), and as 16:9 picture (widescreen). It makes possible direct resolution comparison between 4:3 and 16:9 snapshots.

I understand what you have done, but in changing the aspect ratio of the 1956 chart you have also changed the gradient of the converging lines so the 300 value should now read 400 for example

Further it is difficult to believe that a PAL 940 has less than 400 vertical lines in 4:3 as your chart shows - this is why an expensive 80$ photographic film transparency is recommended for controlled testing and the camera must be perfectly jigged to avoid pixel misalignment