TRV950 or TRV940E
 

Hello,

I am about to buy a TRV950 from B&H. Just noticed they also offer TRV940E for extra $100 with 90-Day B&H warranty.
So, my question: is there any point to prefer PAL camcorder over the NTSC one? I mostly care about the video quality. Have anybody noticed any difference in perception because of some extra lines and/or different frame rate?

I live in USA and in Russia, so any format is acceptable for me. However I've been using TRV30 NTSC for two years. Collected about 30 tapes of archived videos.

So I am thinking if it makes sense to switch to another standard for higher video quality...

Thanks All.
vk

Welcome to dvinfo, Vasily! Isn't the TRV940 the TRV950 but without the bluetooth? Where do you do most of your shooting (Russia or USA, indoor or outdoor)? What is the footage for? Where does most of your footage go?

Thanks!

Maybe you are right about the Bluetooth. I was never paying any attention to this feature and I missed it again. For me bluetooth is not important at all. Am I correct when I assume that 950 and 940E are the same models (excluding bluetooth) except one is for NTSC and another is for PAL.

I am an amateur videographer :) All the footage I make for myself and my friends, nothing for sale.
Most of my shootings I do outdoor in America, but who knows, might be very soon I will be taping indoor in Russia
:)

Thanks
vk

It's just that using a PAL cam in the USA will cause flickering with some indoor lighting. Bluetooth is pretty much useless on cams. Do you convert your NTSC footage for your friends? Via a multi-system converting VCR?

Oh, right! Good to know. Is that because the electricity supply in the USA has 60 Hz while the PAL makes 50 fields per sec?

About converting... When I have to make a VHS cassette, yes, you are right, I am using Samsung SV-5000W for that. However it happens not that often. Usually I make DVD disks. Fortunately in Russia all DVD players can play NTSC disks on PAL TV sets.
Sometimes I make DivX files for viewing on a computer.

Yes. But it also depends on the kind of lighting. Only some kinds of lighting gives me problems with my PAL cam.

Frank,
so you are using a PAL camcorder in the USA. Any regrets, some other dissatisfactions?

I'm not using a PAL cam in the USA. I live in Canada. Using PAL in Canada---which is also NTSC.

For me there are no "regrets...dissatisfactions" because I was aware of the limitations before I bought PAL. All my shooting isn't PAL though. Most of it is NTSC these days.

Vasily,

If your country's TV system is PAL, then I strongly suggest that you get a PAL cam.

It's quite troublesome to convert from one system to another.

Also, please take note that most Sony consumer models use an "E" to indicate PAL system.

Usually, PAL cams are slightly more expensive than NTSC (no idea why).

There are 950 and 950E, 940 and 940E.

950s = Bluetooth + browser + stylus.

Since Bluetooth is becoming more popular now, and, more and more mobile phones are equiped with Bluetooth and GPRS, it may be useful in some situation.

I remember I once used my 950E to take some stills and sent them back via Bluetooth+mobile GPRS to my boss when I was abroad sourcing for some equipments. It's indeed useful.

DCR TRV950 in 16:9 mode
 

I am a little confused, does the DCR TRV950 also record in the 16:9 mode or is this only a feature of the DSR PDX10 ? If the TRV 950 does record 16:9 is the quality the same.
Thank you

It has a 16:9 mode but it is not a true 16:9 so there is quality loss in the picture. The pdx10 will shoot true 16:9 though.

the 950 has an excellent 16:9 mode

http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/SO/TRV...ide/resoDV.jpg

I think the 950's 16:9 mode, even though it does not use a wider portion of the CCD than 4:3 mode like the PDX10 does, still uses enough pixels to produce an image better (resolutionwise) than that of native DV resolution cameras like the PD170. You will get a slightly sharper, slightly cleaner (less noise) picture from a PDX10 in comparison to a '950 thanks to it using a larger surface of the CCD (more pixels). Also it seems the 950 does not include the same 14-bit image processing hardware as the PDX10, so there could also be better color fidelity with the latter. This is all theory, though. I have operated and read about the '950 but I don't have one and have never tried it side by side with my PDX10. Would be great for somebody who actually owns both to compare and post pictures... anybody?

Have you seen the photos and info at this site?

Wow Boyd. Thats pretty interesting. All this time I thought there would be a significant loss in resolution when using 16:9 on the TRV950. Guess I was wrong.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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)

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

Unfortunately that is pretty standard, they soak you for that type of cable (4 pin to 6 pin I think it's called?), but I have boxes of the standard 6 pin to 6 pin variety. They come with every disk drive I buy! I can't remember, but maybe the USB cable has some non-standard connector on the camera end and that's why they include it?

Built in ND on TRV950?
 

I saw some earlier posts that refer to some built in ND filters in the TRV 950. Does the 950 really have built in ND filters that cannot be controlled by the user??

......Tom?.......

:-)

While we're waiting for Tom to respond from across the pond...

This is correct. Take a flashlight and shine it into the lens, look carefully. On a bright day in manual iris mode, turn the wheel to close the iris. At a certain point you will see something moving in there. You may have to try looking from different angles to see it, but the filters are there. Can't remember but I think there are 3 different ones that drop in and out. They prevent you from shooting at too small an f-stop where the lens wouldn't look so good.

It's odd that Sony never documented these "double secret ND filters."

Thanks, but please clarify for a newbie with limited knowledge of photography and video terminology.

If I'm "closing the iris", aren't I letting in less light? And if that is the case, why would the ND filters jump in? Or maybe you are saying I will see the ND filters move out of the way when I close the iris.

And when you say "too small an f-stop", that means a wide open iris, right? And without the double secret ND filters the image would get blown out or smeary?

Thanks for your patience!

Because at such small lens and sensor sizes, the image suffers from something called --I don't remember what it's called-- but it looks strange. Not only Sony, but other makers of small-sized high-res cameras use built-in ND filters extensivley. The ND filters keep the iris near the "sweet spot", the aperture at which the lens operates it's bests specs.

I am sure Tom can explain it much better.

Thanks. I guess I'd also like to know if there are any issues to be aware of when putting on external ND filters. I've been using an ND filter on the front for pretty much all my outdoor video and it seems to be working fine. I suppose as long as I'm working in manual I should be okay no matter what I put on the front (within reason)

As far as I know there are no ND-filters that would affect autofocus or automatic whitebalancing or autoexposure.

BUT:

Autofocus issues

If you put a lot of filters in front of the camera then the risk of focusing on a filter increases. Keep the filters 1) clean 2) few i.e. close to the lens. The longer the focal length in mm the more filters you can stack.

Also use a sunshade if possible: Raindrops on the lens are irritating. The camera focuses on them in autofocus mode. Use manual and push-auto in rain or use a sunshade to protect the lens surface from water drops.

If your camcorder uses contrast detection for autofocus and you use contrast reducing filters then good luck...

Whitebalancing:

Neutral density filters are neutral. They SHOULD not have any effect on color or they are faulty. Some other filters might affect colors (it might be desired or maybe not).

Autoexposure issues:

Some polarizers (and some other types of filters) might require exposure compensation but it will then be told in the filters manual.

Some good replies here chaps, and sorry I haven't jumped in - too damn busy with the wedding shoots.

The TRV950 is a strange beast. It has a wonderful lens but tiny chips covered in millions of sensors, which are good for resolution at the expense of CCD smear and low-light performance.

The tiny chips mean that very short focal lengths have to be employed. Look at it this way - the very poor wide angle of the 950 is obtained with a focal length of 3.6mm, yet a much wider coverage is provided by the VX2100 with a 6mm focal length. This all comes down to chip size, and the compactness of the 950 sure brings with it some serious disadvantages.

These very short focal lengths mean that diffraction losses become very apparent as you stop down the lens. Diffraction shows up as loss of resolution, and using any aperture smaller than f4.8 will give progressivly softer pictures. That's why Sony pretend that you're stopping the lens down (f5.6, then f8, then f11 and so on) whereas in fact it's locking the aperture at f4.8 and doing this by inserting up to 3 ND filters to soak the light. Often you'll be shooting through 1.7 filters, where the second ND will be only partially obsuring the light path and you'll be shooting through the cut edge of the filter. UG! Very out of focus though.

The 'Auto Shutter' is there because on bright days even with all three NDs (automatically) in place the lens still needs to stop down. This will give you blurry movies, so Sony decided to let the shutter speeds increase rather than let this happen. Shooting at 1/300th sec and f4.8 will give you sharper (but more juddery) images than using 1/50th and f11.

Trouble is at 1/300th sec CCD smear is all too obvious, so Rob Simon has the right idea - use external ND filters to soak the light, and keep auto shutter turned off. Keep any filter absolutely spotless though - focal lengths of 3.6mm have massive dof, and any dust on either side of the filter will be rendered as sharp dots on your footage. Use a GOOD hood.

tom.

Wow! Thanks for the great explanation! I sure learned a lot about my camcorder in that one post.