TRV950 -- various questions

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 28th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Interesting. 944 X 528 is more than enough for native NTSC 16:9 and almost enough for native PAL 16:9. So in the case of PAL there should be a slight but very insignificant loss in vertical resolution comparing 16:9 to 4:3. Almost as good as the PDX10.

Dustin Waits · June 5th, 2004, 06:22 PM

I tried searching but I couldn't find much. What exactly is the resolution (in pixels of course) of the trv950 in 16:9 mode? The reason I ask is because I have been shooting 16:9 lately and I import it into a widescreen premiere 6.5 project and its fine, but when I export it, it ends up being squished into a 4:3 aspect, even though I'm exporting it using the 16:9 settings. If I import the file back into premiere its back to 16:9. So at first I thought this was just Windows Media player that was squishing it, but then I imported the same file into AE and it is at a 4:3 aspect again. I tried changing all the settings in premiere and it still does it so if I could find out the exact pixel resolution I could possibly manually type those in and export it that way. Has anyone else had this problem before?

Sorry if I wasnt very clear and it sounds confusing.

Boyd Ostroff · June 5th, 2004, 08:41 PM

All NTSC DV is 720 x 480 regardless of the camera. When shooting 16:9, the widescreen image is compressed such that everything looks too skinny on a 4:3 TV, so what you describe sounds correct. But if you view on a widescreen TV it will look correct. 16:9 video is anamorphic, meaning "changed form", so it is still 720 x 480, but the pixel aspect ratio has changed.

Now if you want it to display in the correct proportions on a square pixel device such as a computer monitor, you will have to render it as 854 x 480 (or any other desired size with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio).

So it sounds like everything is behaving as expected but you need to watch your video on a widescreen TV for it to be properly proportioned.

Dustin Waits · June 5th, 2004, 09:25 PM

Thanks for the reply. Yea when I'm rendering to view it on a regular tv I would letterbox it but I was just wanting to be able to view it on a computer monitor. So 854X480 is what I will use. Thanks Boyd!

Nick Poteri · July 29th, 2004, 07:38 PM

Hi, I am looking to use a wide-angle lens with my Sony DCR-TRV950E camcorder.

I presently own a Minolta ZCW-100 which offers 0.75x magnification. This was purchased for the Z1, a consumer 10x digital still camera by Minolta, that I briefly owned earlier this year. This lens has a 52mm mount, and I have successfully used it with my Sony camcorder using a 37-52mm stepper.

However, I'd like a slightly wider angle of view. Raynox have a new HD-6600PRO lens offering 0.66x magnification. Once again, I'd have to use the stepper, but the advantage would be that I could still use it on my Canon digital still camera.

I'm thinking of selling the Minolta lens and getting the Raynox. But I'm wondering if the quality of the Minolta lens is better or worse than the Raynox. The Raynox is also twice the price of what I'd get for the Minolta, so I should take that into account too.

Any thoughts or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Nick.

Tom Hardwick · August 1st, 2004, 11:17 AM

How worried are you by barrel distortion Nick? When you use the Minolta widie does it curve straight lines at the edge of the frame? Bet it does.

The Raynox 6600Pro is very good in this respect, keeping barrel distortion well controlled, but at the expense of sharpness at full telephoto. So if you use it as a widie rather than a full zoom through you'll be ok. The coating isn't up to much and you'll need a hood. Mine is now three years old so the new ones may be better in this respect.

Next to your point about the Minolta being too mild. I agree entirely with you on that score, and the 950 has one of the poorest wide-angles in the business, equating to 49mm in still camera terms. The camera cries out for a 0.5x wide-angle converter in my view, because if you're going to go to all the hassle of fitting another lens then it might as well be *wide*.

tom.

Dustin Waits · August 8th, 2004, 03:55 AM

Dont know if any of you have seen this yet but the show titled "Things I Hate About You" is shot using the trv950 (parts of the show anyway,... I'm sure there are other cameras used as well). The show is on Bravo and its actually pretty funny.

Ted Hubert · August 10th, 2004, 04:38 PM

Please forgive my newbieness!

I recently purchased a TRV950 and I'm very happy with the image quality when I playback directly from the camera to my TV. However, when I import the video into the bundled software (Pixela Image Maker) it looks terrible (soft, pixelated, etc.). It's not my monitor because I've seen plenty of good quality video using it.

Is it the software, my connection (USB), or have I missed something obvious?

TIA

Ted Hubert
(extraordinarily ignorant newbie)

Rob Lohman · August 11th, 2004, 02:54 AM

Ted: please use titles that tell people something about your
question or "problem". I've renamed this thread to better
indicate what is going on. The only stupid question is the one
not asked. This forum does not allow bashing of other people
so you don't have to say things like "sorry for my stupid question"
etc. etc.

On to your problem. I don't know your camera, but I looked up
a review and it has firewire (IEEE 1394 / i.link) interface. That is
the interface you should be using to transfer your footage, NOT
USB! Also you might want to look around at a more serious editor
since I doubt the program you mentioned will do you much good.

If you look around in our editing forums you will see plenty of
people discussing non-linear edit (NLE) systems. Also lots of
threads already there with the question which one is best so
please take a look at them first before asking which NLE you
should get.

Thank you and good luck with your capturing!

p.s. welcome aboard!

Boyd Ostroff · August 11th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Hi Ted,

All I can add is that plenty of people here have used the TRV-950 without problem on both the PC and Mac. I don't know anything about that software, but no doubt it's your problem. Actually you're the first person I've heard from who actually used it!

Perhaps someone else can help, but I certainly agree with Rob that you should be using a firewire interface and not USB. I thought the USB was only used for still photos and MPEG video. Come to think of it, this may be your problem. You may very well be looking at an MPEG stream from the USB port which is very low resolution and highly compressed. Only suitable for low quality internet use, such as a "web cam".

I suspect you will need to buy one of the "real" video editors. I work on the Mac so I can't help you much with the PC, but seem to recall that one of the companies offers a free, basic version of their poduct. Someone else should be able to help with this.

Ted Hubert · August 11th, 2004, 12:02 PM

Thank you both for your reply.

I suspecteded it might be the USB interface.

Not to worry about the editor. I had no intentions of using it. Until I pick an editor, I only used it to download the first video I shot and my first impression of the video scared me.

I'll pick up a firewire cable today and see if that makes a difference.

Thanks again.

Ted Hubert

Boyd Ostroff · August 11th, 2004, 01:18 PM

Just to clarify, I don't think it specifically is a USB vs Firewire issue. I think it has to do with the data format. The TRV-950 and PDX-10 can do USB streaming using a separate mode where the image is heavily MPEG compressed and has a maximum frame size of 320x240 (IIRC). This is provided as a way to get low quality, low bandwith video suitable for the internet only. This has been discussed superficially around here and the consensus was that the quality was horrible.

When you connect via FireWire (or i.Link in Sony-speak) you are using a data stream that delivers the full resolution of the camera. I'd be surprised if that included software could even make use of it, but I have never tried so I'm just guessing.

Ronald Lee · August 13th, 2004, 03:12 AM

No, I get the same problem off my PDX10 into my Sony Viao. Editing on Premiere 6.5.

My image comes off soft as well in the computer BUT when I putput it back to tape, it looks as sharp as the original footage.

Why is this? Perhaps a screen resolution setting? Video card? I don't know.

Rob Lohman · August 13th, 2004, 04:10 AM

Can be due to monitor as well. Keep in mind that if you play your
footage back through Windows Media Player it only plays it at
50% resolution per default!

Ted Hubert · August 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM

Well, I bought a firewire card (the card with cable was actually cheaper than just a cable!). I'm happy to report that my problem is solved. After downloading the video, it looks crisp and clean.

I do find it strange that Sony would decide to ship the camera with a USB cable rather than a firewire cable. This is supposed to be a higher end consumer camera, not a webcam.

In any case, thank you all very much for your advice! I'm off to make movies!

April 28th, 2004, 09:35 AM	#136
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Interesting. 944 X 528 is more than enough for native NTSC 16:9 and almost enough for native PAL 16:9. So in the case of PAL there should be a slight but very insignificant loss in vertical resolution comparing 16:9 to 4:3. Almost as good as the PDX10. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

June 5th, 2004, 06:22 PM	#137
Dustin Waits Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ft. Myers Beach, Fl Posts: 243	trv950 16:9 resolution... I tried searching but I couldn't find much. What exactly is the resolution (in pixels of course) of the trv950 in 16:9 mode? The reason I ask is because I have been shooting 16:9 lately and I import it into a widescreen premiere 6.5 project and its fine, but when I export it, it ends up being squished into a 4:3 aspect, even though I'm exporting it using the 16:9 settings. If I import the file back into premiere its back to 16:9. So at first I thought this was just Windows Media player that was squishing it, but then I imported the same file into AE and it is at a 4:3 aspect again. I tried changing all the settings in premiere and it still does it so if I could find out the exact pixel resolution I could possibly manually type those in and export it that way. Has anyone else had this problem before? Sorry if I wasnt very clear and it sounds confusing.

July 29th, 2004, 07:38 PM	#140
Nick Poteri Tourist Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 4	Minolta vs Raynox WA lens for TRV950 Hi, I am looking to use a wide-angle lens with my Sony DCR-TRV950E camcorder. I presently own a Minolta ZCW-100 which offers 0.75x magnification. This was purchased for the Z1, a consumer 10x digital still camera by Minolta, that I briefly owned earlier this year. This lens has a 52mm mount, and I have successfully used it with my Sony camcorder using a 37-52mm stepper. However, I'd like a slightly wider angle of view. Raynox have a new HD-6600PRO lens offering 0.66x magnification. Once again, I'd have to use the stepper, but the advantage would be that I could still use it on my Canon digital still camera. I'm thinking of selling the Minolta lens and getting the Raynox. But I'm wondering if the quality of the Minolta lens is better or worse than the Raynox. The Raynox is also twice the price of what I'd get for the Minolta, so I should take that into account too. Any thoughts or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick.

August 8th, 2004, 03:55 AM	#142
Dustin Waits Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ft. Myers Beach, Fl Posts: 243	Television show shot with trv950 Dont know if any of you have seen this yet but the show titled "Things I Hate About You" is shot using the trv950 (parts of the show anyway,... I'm sure there are other cameras used as well). The show is on Bravo and its actually pretty funny.

August 10th, 2004, 04:38 PM	#143
Ted Hubert New Boot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Delta, British Columbia Posts: 5	Probably a stupid question Please forgive my newbieness! I recently purchased a TRV950 and I'm very happy with the image quality when I playback directly from the camera to my TV. However, when I import the video into the bundled software (Pixela Image Maker) it looks terrible (soft, pixelated, etc.). It's not my monitor because I've seen plenty of good quality video using it. Is it the software, my connection (USB), or have I missed something obvious? TIA Ted Hubert (extraordinarily ignorant newbie)

June 5th, 2004, 08:41 PM	#138
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	All NTSC DV is 720 x 480 regardless of the camera. When shooting 16:9, the widescreen image is compressed such that everything looks too skinny on a 4:3 TV, so what you describe sounds correct. But if you view on a widescreen TV it will look correct. 16:9 video is anamorphic, meaning "changed form", so it is still 720 x 480, but the pixel aspect ratio has changed. Now if you want it to display in the correct proportions on a square pixel device such as a computer monitor, you will have to render it as 854 x 480 (or any other desired size with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio). So it sounds like everything is behaving as expected but you need to watch your video on a widescreen TV for it to be properly proportioned.

June 5th, 2004, 09:25 PM	#139
Dustin Waits Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ft. Myers Beach, Fl Posts: 243	Thanks for the reply. Yea when I'm rendering to view it on a regular tv I would letterbox it but I was just wanting to be able to view it on a computer monitor. So 854X480 is what I will use. Thanks Boyd!

August 1st, 2004, 11:17 AM	#141
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	How worried are you by barrel distortion Nick? When you use the Minolta widie does it curve straight lines at the edge of the frame? Bet it does. The Raynox 6600Pro is very good in this respect, keeping barrel distortion well controlled, but at the expense of sharpness at full telephoto. So if you use it as a widie rather than a full zoom through you'll be ok. The coating isn't up to much and you'll need a hood. Mine is now three years old so the new ones may be better in this respect. Next to your point about the Minolta being too mild. I agree entirely with you on that score, and the 950 has one of the poorest wide-angles in the business, equating to 49mm in still camera terms. The camera cries out for a 0.5x wide-angle converter in my view, because if you're going to go to all the hassle of fitting another lens then it might as well be wide. tom.

August 11th, 2004, 02:54 AM	#144
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Ted: please use titles that tell people something about your question or "problem". I've renamed this thread to better indicate what is going on. The only stupid question is the one not asked. This forum does not allow bashing of other people so you don't have to say things like "sorry for my stupid question" etc. etc. On to your problem. I don't know your camera, but I looked up a review and it has firewire (IEEE 1394 / i.link) interface. That is the interface you should be using to transfer your footage, NOT USB! Also you might want to look around at a more serious editor since I doubt the program you mentioned will do you much good. If you look around in our editing forums you will see plenty of people discussing non-linear edit (NLE) systems. Also lots of threads already there with the question which one is best so please take a look at them first before asking which NLE you should get. Thank you and good luck with your capturing! p.s. welcome aboard! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

August 11th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#145
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Hi Ted, All I can add is that plenty of people here have used the TRV-950 without problem on both the PC and Mac. I don't know anything about that software, but no doubt it's your problem. Actually you're the first person I've heard from who actually used it! Perhaps someone else can help, but I certainly agree with Rob that you should be using a firewire interface and not USB. I thought the USB was only used for still photos and MPEG video. Come to think of it, this may be your problem. You may very well be looking at an MPEG stream from the USB port which is very low resolution and highly compressed. Only suitable for low quality internet use, such as a "web cam". I suspect you will need to buy one of the "real" video editors. I work on the Mac so I can't help you much with the PC, but seem to recall that one of the companies offers a free, basic version of their poduct. Someone else should be able to help with this.

August 11th, 2004, 12:02 PM	#146
Ted Hubert New Boot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Delta, British Columbia Posts: 5	Thank you both for your reply. I suspecteded it might be the USB interface. Not to worry about the editor. I had no intentions of using it. Until I pick an editor, I only used it to download the first video I shot and my first impression of the video scared me. I'll pick up a firewire cable today and see if that makes a difference. Thanks again. Ted Hubert

August 11th, 2004, 01:18 PM	#147
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Just to clarify, I don't think it specifically is a USB vs Firewire issue. I think it has to do with the data format. The TRV-950 and PDX-10 can do USB streaming using a separate mode where the image is heavily MPEG compressed and has a maximum frame size of 320x240 (IIRC). This is provided as a way to get low quality, low bandwith video suitable for the internet only. This has been discussed superficially around here and the consensus was that the quality was horrible. When you connect via FireWire (or i.Link in Sony-speak) you are using a data stream that delivers the full resolution of the camera. I'd be surprised if that included software could even make use of it, but I have never tried so I'm just guessing.

August 13th, 2004, 03:12 AM	#148
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	No, I get the same problem off my PDX10 into my Sony Viao. Editing on Premiere 6.5. My image comes off soft as well in the computer BUT when I putput it back to tape, it looks as sharp as the original footage. Why is this? Perhaps a screen resolution setting? Video card? I don't know.

August 13th, 2004, 04:10 AM	#149
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Can be due to monitor as well. Keep in mind that if you play your footage back through Windows Media Player it only plays it at 50% resolution per default! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

August 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#150
Ted Hubert New Boot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Delta, British Columbia Posts: 5	Well, I bought a firewire card (the card with cable was actually cheaper than just a cable!). I'm happy to report that my problem is solved. After downloading the video, it looks crisp and clean. I do find it strange that Sony would decide to ship the camera with a USB cable rather than a firewire cable. This is supposed to be a higher end consumer camera, not a webcam. In any case, thank you all very much for your advice! I'm off to make movies!