Panasonic DV852, Sony TRV38 or Canon Optura 20 at DVinfo.net

Ludvik Herrera · February 2nd, 2004, 04:36 PM

Hello:

I will really appreciate your help in helping me decide what camera will be best.

-Best Quality
-Durability
-Indoor room shooting (low light)

I think I have narrow my decision to these cams:

Sony TRV38 (540 lines?)
PV-DV852 (520 lines?)
Canon Optura 20 (500 lines?)

For all what i can see they are very similar, but i haven't seen any video footage from neither. I want the best video quality possible.

How many pixels in the 852 CCD, the other two say 690K.

Thank you for your help
Ludvik
ludvikherrera@netscape.net

Ludvik Herrera · February 2nd, 2004, 04:41 PM

I forgot to mention, does the 852 has pass-through signal?

Frank Granovski · February 2nd, 2004, 11:34 PM

Yes, it has pass-through. Where did you get those specs for playback resolution? The MX1000/MX8/PV-DV852 plays back 530 horizontal lines.

Langston Sessoms · February 3rd, 2004, 11:02 AM

Sonystyle.com says the TRV38 only has 520 lines of resolution. Canon's website says the Optura 20 has 525 lines of resolution. looks like the DV852 wins and is the least exspensive out of the three.

Fred Alberni · February 3rd, 2004, 11:48 AM

Forget about Optura 20. Its low light performance would be the worst in this bunch. Between the other two, the DV-852 is a little bigger than TRV38, but it has one big advantage, optical image stabalizer. TRV38 has a bigger LCD, 3.5" vs. 2.5".

If you want to shoot in manual, I think DV-852 is more practical for that purpose. Although it is also perfect for point and shoot.

Another consideration is the lens field of view. The DV-852 has a wider field of view. In small rooms, you can get more into the picture. With TRV 38 you would probably need a wide angle lens.

Tommy Haupfear · February 3rd, 2004, 03:13 PM

I agree with what Fred has posted and I will add that the TRV38 does have a quality 16:9 mode if that makes any difference to you.

I would still rather have the DV852!

Ludvik Herrera · February 3rd, 2004, 05:16 PM

I will consider a 16:9 a plus definately and Fred's and your comment, Tommy, are really good. So do you mean that the DV852 does not have a good 16:9 or not at all?

Any one can tell me the number of pixels in the Panasonic 852?

I am ordering either the TRV38 or the PV-DV852 tomorrow (Wed) so I really appreciate your quick responses.

Ludvik

Fred Alberni · February 3rd, 2004, 06:21 PM

The Dv-852 is a 1.2 Mega pixel cam. TRV33/38 & 39 have 1.02 Mega pixel CCDs. Not all the pixels are used for the video. They're used for still pictures. The video uses less, usually around 600K. I think camcorders that have digital image stablizers, they use some of the pixels for image stabilization.

Re 16:9 mode, the PV-852 just puts a black bar across the top and bottom. I don't know about the TRV 38, but some camcorders when you put them in 16:9 mode, it actually increases their width of view. They get just a little more from each side in the view. There maybe more to what Tommy said about better 16:9 for TRV38. I never use 16:9 but some people only shoot in 16:9.

Frank Granovski · February 3rd, 2004, 06:45 PM

There's a MX8 brochure link found here, to answer your 16:9 concerns:

http://members.tripod.com/vincent_ysc/2002.html

The MX8 is the PAL version of the MX1000/PV-DV852.

Tommy Haupfear · February 3rd, 2004, 07:21 PM

The DCR-TRV38 uses 690k pixels for video out of its total 1070k pixels and if I remember from my DV852 it uses about the same for its video actual.

The TRV38 has an anamoprhic 16:9 mode that is of high quality and increases the angle of view much the same as Sony PDX10 ($2000 3CCD). In fact the PDX10 has 1070k pixel CCDs (three) and also utitlizes 690k for video. The difference is that the TRV38 lacks optical image stabilization (OIS) like the PDX10 but luckily it employs electronic sensors (EIS) to compensate motion/shake and is still effective in 16:9 mode. The worst stabilization is digital image stabilization (DIS) which uses the same extended pixel range of the CCD that a quality 16:9 mode does. That often cripples or disables DIS while in 16:9 mode.

Here is an illustration of how the PDX10 acquires its enhanced 16:9 image.

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

You can get a $300 anamorphic adapter for the DV852 but it has some limitations and adds quite a bit to your initial purchase. Otherwise you have the 25% resolution robbing in-camera 16:9 mode aka as letterboxed.

Here is a great resource for in-camera 16:9 differences with examples.

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

Allan Rejoso · February 3rd, 2004, 07:40 PM

MX1000/852 CCD

1/3.8", 1.02MP, 710K effective video

Frank Granovski · February 4th, 2004, 12:52 AM

Thanks, Allan. I new the video effective pixels were in the 700K range somewhere, but couldn't find the exact number.

And...: HAPPY 28th BIRTHDAY, TOMMY!!! :-)) :-))

February 2nd, 2004, 04:36 PM	#1
Ludvik Herrera Tourist Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: United States Posts: 3	Panasonic DV852, Sony TRV38 or Canon Optura 20 Hello: I will really appreciate your help in helping me decide what camera will be best. -Best Quality -Durability -Indoor room shooting (low light) I think I have narrow my decision to these cams: Sony TRV38 (540 lines?) PV-DV852 (520 lines?) Canon Optura 20 (500 lines?) For all what i can see they are very similar, but i haven't seen any video footage from neither. I want the best video quality possible. How many pixels in the 852 CCD, the other two say 690K. Thank you for your help Ludvik ludvikherrera@netscape.net

February 2nd, 2004, 04:41 PM	#2
Ludvik Herrera Tourist Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: United States Posts: 3	pass-through? I forgot to mention, does the 852 has pass-through signal?

February 3rd, 2004, 05:16 PM	#7
Ludvik Herrera Tourist Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: United States Posts: 3	16:9 not good in dv852? I will consider a 16:9 a plus definately and Fred's and your comment, Tommy, are really good. So do you mean that the DV852 does not have a good 16:9 or not at all? Any one can tell me the number of pixels in the Panasonic 852? I am ordering either the TRV38 or the PV-DV852 tomorrow (Wed) so I really appreciate your quick responses. Ludvik

February 2nd, 2004, 11:34 PM	#3
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Yes, it has pass-through. Where did you get those specs for playback resolution? The MX1000/MX8/PV-DV852 plays back 530 horizontal lines.

February 3rd, 2004, 11:02 AM	#4
Langston Sessoms Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: NY Posts: 83	Sonystyle.com says the TRV38 only has 520 lines of resolution. Canon's website says the Optura 20 has 525 lines of resolution. looks like the DV852 wins and is the least exspensive out of the three.

February 3rd, 2004, 11:48 AM	#5
Fred Alberni New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Near Seattle Posts: 24	Forget about Optura 20. Its low light performance would be the worst in this bunch. Between the other two, the DV-852 is a little bigger than TRV38, but it has one big advantage, optical image stabalizer. TRV38 has a bigger LCD, 3.5" vs. 2.5". If you want to shoot in manual, I think DV-852 is more practical for that purpose. Although it is also perfect for point and shoot. Another consideration is the lens field of view. The DV-852 has a wider field of view. In small rooms, you can get more into the picture. With TRV 38 you would probably need a wide angle lens.

February 3rd, 2004, 03:13 PM	#6
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I agree with what Fred has posted and I will add that the TRV38 does have a quality 16:9 mode if that makes any difference to you. I would still rather have the DV852!

February 3rd, 2004, 06:21 PM	#8
Fred Alberni New Boot Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Near Seattle Posts: 24	The Dv-852 is a 1.2 Mega pixel cam. TRV33/38 & 39 have 1.02 Mega pixel CCDs. Not all the pixels are used for the video. They're used for still pictures. The video uses less, usually around 600K. I think camcorders that have digital image stablizers, they use some of the pixels for image stabilization. Re 16:9 mode, the PV-852 just puts a black bar across the top and bottom. I don't know about the TRV 38, but some camcorders when you put them in 16:9 mode, it actually increases their width of view. They get just a little more from each side in the view. There maybe more to what Tommy said about better 16:9 for TRV38. I never use 16:9 but some people only shoot in 16:9.

February 3rd, 2004, 06:45 PM	#9
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	There's a MX8 brochure link found here, to answer your 16:9 concerns: http://members.tripod.com/vincent_ysc/2002.html The MX8 is the PAL version of the MX1000/PV-DV852.

February 3rd, 2004, 07:21 PM	#10
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	The DCR-TRV38 uses 690k pixels for video out of its total 1070k pixels and if I remember from my DV852 it uses about the same for its video actual. The TRV38 has an anamoprhic 16:9 mode that is of high quality and increases the angle of view much the same as Sony PDX10 ($2000 3CCD). In fact the PDX10 has 1070k pixel CCDs (three) and also utitlizes 690k for video. The difference is that the TRV38 lacks optical image stabilization (OIS) like the PDX10 but luckily it employs electronic sensors (EIS) to compensate motion/shake and is still effective in 16:9 mode. The worst stabilization is digital image stabilization (DIS) which uses the same extended pixel range of the CCD that a quality 16:9 mode does. That often cripples or disables DIS while in 16:9 mode. Here is an illustration of how the PDX10 acquires its enhanced 16:9 image. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg You can get a $300 anamorphic adapter for the DV852 but it has some limitations and adds quite a bit to your initial purchase. Otherwise you have the 25% resolution robbing in-camera 16:9 mode aka as letterboxed. Here is a great resource for in-camera 16:9 differences with examples. http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

February 3rd, 2004, 07:40 PM	#11
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	MX1000/852 CCD 1/3.8", 1.02MP, 710K effective video

February 4th, 2004, 12:52 AM	#12
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks, Allan. I new the video effective pixels were in the 700K range somewhere, but couldn't find the exact number. And...: HAPPY 28th BIRTHDAY, TOMMY!!! :-)) :-))