DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   HC1000 -- various questions (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/30692-hc1000-various-questions.html)

Patrick Grealy May 12th, 2004 09:45 AM

HC1000 -- various questions
 
Hello All

Looks like the 950 is being replaced by the HC1000 so I presume it is only a matter of time before our beloved PDX10 is history too.

Dealers in Europe are starting to off load the PDX10. My dealer has dropped his price by Euro500 in the last 2 days

Get them while you can!!

Regards P

Boyd Ostroff May 12th, 2004 10:31 AM

Well of course this is just speculation and we try to avoid that at DVinfo. I looked at that link, and although the form factor is different I don't see many improvements over the 950, although there was some speculation that it would have the same high quality 16:9 as the PDX-10. Being able to switch between focus and zoom ring would be nice I guess. But perhaps Sony will provide some incremental improvements to the PDX-10 like they did on the PD-170? I don't know that it's a done deal that they will replace the PDX-10; for example, they haven't replaced the DSR-250.

BTW Patrick, you can make your links "clickable" by using the following technique:

[ url ] www.anywebsite.com/whatever [ /url ]

(you will need to remove the blank spaces inserted in the example above for this to work however)

Patrick Grealy May 12th, 2004 10:47 AM

Hi Boyd

Will do!

Have decied that I will buy a 2nd PDX10 (at this new price) for multi-cam events (in 16:9)

Having an extra XLR mic shoe (in case the original one I own breaks) is an added advatage, even if I don;t record 4 tracks at a time.

Regards P

Frank Granovski May 12th, 2004 12:03 PM

Who says this cam is replacing the PDX10? It's meant to compete with bottom-end 3-CCD cams like the Panasonsic GS70, GS120 and the GS200. The PDX has XLRs, does the HC1000 have XLRs?

Boyd Ostroff May 12th, 2004 07:02 PM

Frank: Patrick was speculating that since Sony appears to be replacing the TRV-950 that a replacement for it's "big brother" the PDX-10 might be just around the corner. We'll see...

Frank Granovski May 12th, 2004 09:10 PM

Thanks, Boyd! Speculation is grand. :-))

Danny Fye August 18th, 2004 04:38 PM

Hc-1000 Ot
 
Does anyone here have any thoughts on the new Sony HC-1000?

How does it compare to the trv950 in video qualty?

I noticed that Sony says it has 5 lux instead of the 7 lux of the 950. Can anyone verify this?

Thanks,
Danny Fye

Kaku Ito September 6th, 2004 02:49 AM

Checking with my dealer if I can test HC1000 for a few days.
I'm looking into HC1000 because HC1000 can control zooming with the ring and it seems to have slow shutter speed. PDX10 is good but it lacks manual zoom ring and Panasonic NV-GS400 is also great value but lacks slower shutter speed control. HC1000 seems to have both, so I'm interested in finding out how this cam would perform.

Boyd Ostroff September 6th, 2004 06:43 AM

I haven't seen one in person, so this is just my impression based on reading the specs. Maybe I would fall in love if I actually had one to play with? Compared to the TRV-950 here's what I see...

Improvements:
* high quality 16:9
* zoom/focus ring
* black finish
* price should be a bit lower than TRV-950
* slightly more light sensitivity

Downgrades:
* viewfinder only has 123,000 pixels vs 180,000 on TRV-950
* LCD only has 211,000 pixels vs 246,000 on TRV-950
* LCD is 2.5", TRV-950 has a 3.5" LCD
* uses a different type of battery which is only available in smaller sizes
* no physical manual controls, everything controlled by touch panel screen

Video quality should be the same since it has the same CCD's. It appears that the lens is the same, but Sony is paying Zeiss to add their name to it.

Danny Fye September 6th, 2004 11:10 AM

Thanks for the reply,

Should I hopefully find a TRV950 and get one or should I get the new HC-1000?

I am wanting to get a good camera in this price range. The Panasonic has the combo jacks and no lanc so it is out and the new Sony, well...

I have seen messages about verticle smear on the trv950 and was wondering how much a problem it really is. Would the hc1000 have the same problem if it actually has the same lens and not what is hyped about?

Sorry 'bout all the questions and all, but it looks like Sony is making it much more difficult to consider a camera in this price range.

Others who have the camera say it is great, I don't know.

Danny Fye
www.ourmusic-avp.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : I haven't seen one in person, so this is just my impression based on reading the specs. Maybe I would fall in love if I actually had one to play with? Compared to the TRV-950 here's what I see...

Improvements:
* high quality 16:9
* zoom/focus ring
* black finish
* price should be a bit lower than TRV-950
* slightly more light sensitivity

Downgrades:
* viewfinder only has 123,000 pixels vs 180,000 on TRV-950
* LCD only has 211,000 pixels vs 246,000 on TRV-950
* LCD is 2.5", TRV-950 has a 3.5" LCD
* uses a different type of battery which is only available in smaller sizes
* no physical manual controls, everything controlled by touch panel screen

Video quality should be the same since it has the same CCD's. It appears that the lens is the same, but Sony is paying Zeiss to add their name to it. -->>>

Boyd Ostroff September 6th, 2004 12:22 PM

I think the main attraction of the HC-1000 vs the TRV-950 would be it's higher resolution 16:9, which evidently matches the PDX-10. How important is 16:9 to you?

Danny Fye September 6th, 2004 01:54 PM

Being that I want it as a backup camera for my VX2000 I am not sure. The 16:9 on the VX2000 is not all that good or is it? I haven't had anything to really compare it to but I tried it and all it seems to do is scrunch the video a bit so it would possibly look right on a tv with 16:9, but I noticed a loss of vertical image.

I am not familiar with the PDX-10 and how it does 16:9 so I don't know if it would be a match to my VX2000 or not.

When I do weddings and Church services, the 16:9 may not matter all that much, but when I do plays, I need more width than height then it would matter.

Thanks,
Danny Fye

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : I think the main attraction of the HC-1000 vs the TRV-950 would be it's higher resolution 16:9, which evidently matches the PDX-10. How important is 16:9 to you? -->>>

Boyd Ostroff September 6th, 2004 04:48 PM

The PDX-10 uses the same CCD's and lens as the TRV-950, but the firmware allows it to shoot better 16:9 that has full vertical resolution and a wider field of view by using the megapixel chips. I also have a VX-2000 and it doesn't even come close to the 16:9 quality of the PDX-10 http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9. From what Sony says, the HC-1000 should also shoot 16:9 at this quality level.

Now in 4:3 mode the VX-2000 has a little nicer image and is about two and a half f-stops faster than the PDX-10 or TRV-950. Don't really know what to expect from the HC-1000.

To me, the biggest disappointments in the HC-1000 are the smaller batteries (especially bad for shooting performances) and moving manual controls to the touch screen. If you like the VX-2000 I'm guessing you may be disappointed by this camera, unless you want something smaller, lighter and more consumer oriented. Maybe you can find a dealer that has one in stock so you can play around with it a bit?

There are some more comparisons between the PDX-10 and VX-2000 here http://www.greenmist.com/dv

Mike Sanchez September 18th, 2004 03:52 AM

My local dealer has an HC-1000 and let me spend about 30 minutes with it last Saturday. It is positively TINY compared to my TRV-950. All plastic exterior, very, very light weight. Feels like something I would be able to get at Best Buy assuming I could manage the 5 minute discussion with an aggressive teenager who knows nothing about the camera. The LCD display, compared to the TRV-950 display, is a big step down for indoor shooting. Impossible to manual focus with it.....not enough resolution. No PUSH AUTO focus button......which I think is a phenomenal feature of the TRV-950. With the TRV-950 I quick zoom in....push auto with focus in manual....release and have the best possible focus......

All of the manual adjustments are in the LCD which some others need PROZAC to deal with. For me it would not be too bad since I set my camera up for a particular shoot.....and usually do not change on the fly while handholding. So.....the in LCD manual controls are not a disaster.....

But.....as a "replacement" for the TRV-950....it is not. The TRV-950 was a better camcorder for individuals with a good photographic background, an extra $125 dollars to get an Azden SGM-X (the on-board mics are simply horrific sound), and willing to perform parameter optimization for image content. However, I do think Sony had some difficulty at the price point the TRV-950 sat at. For not much more a GL-2 could be had......my local dealer told me they sold 4 times as many GL-2 as they did TRV-950.

The new price point probably makes it more profitable than the TRV-950 and, honestly, they will probably sell more units than they sold with the TRV-950.

Samuel Birkan September 18th, 2004 12:03 PM

Here is a link to an extensive review of the HC1000
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-DCR-HC1000-Camcorder-Review.htm

Kaku Ito October 3rd, 2004 08:01 AM

I finally tried the HC1000 for few hours and got really dissapointed with the image quality. Wider dynamic ranage was totally sales talk and the image was poor. My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000.

Worst of all, most of the parameters on HC1000 are controlled on the touch panel LCD.

It is hard to believe that FX1 and HC1000 are made by the same company when you think about their cost/performance.

Danny Fye October 3rd, 2004 12:10 PM

"My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000."

That's interesting in that I've read posts where someone said the oposite.

Maybe it's how the settings were done or maybe it's subjective. I don't know.

I do know that I have decided to get the HC1000.

Thanks all for the replies.

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com

Boyd Ostroff October 3rd, 2004 12:30 PM

Congratulations on your decision Danny. We'll be interested to hear your impression of the camera after you've had a chance to get used to it.

Paul Rickford October 6th, 2004 03:12 AM

I have read with interest and some amazement at the passion that the HC1000 has generated on this and other sites.
I am a Canon man with a XL1s, XM2 etc and have been trying to find a ideal travel cam for a long time. When I saw the HC1000 it was love at first sight, as a stand alone product it is unique, 3 chips in a very small well built package ideal for travel with a fantastic picture quality and feature set.
The menu system is not my normal way of working , but its not as bad once you set up the custom menu which means with one touch of the screen I have white balance / colour level / spot meter / spot focus / mic level all at hand and the sony screen is much better than the canons in bright light. the twist grip does help for low level shots and is great for balancing on a wall to steady the cam. this to me is the ideal weekend point and shoot cam when I want 3 chip quality without the XL1s and all the gear, nice one sony.

George Van Noy December 12th, 2004 04:38 AM

16x9 HC1000: ntsc vs pal
 
Is it true that there will be more pixels, hence higher resolution with the pal version? And that therefore after editing say in Vegas or Avid Express Pro, there should be higher resolution during a video projection exhibition?

Would higher resolution also carry over to a 35mm film out?

But, due to the constraints of DVD authoring, there may be no difference here?

B&H lists the HC1000e (PAL) for $50 less than the NTSC version.

And the GS400e is $200 more than the GS400 for NTSC. Which is why I've gotten interested in the HC1000e.

Comments?

George Van Noy

Rob Lohman December 14th, 2004 08:20 AM

Welcome aboard DVInfo.net George.

Yes, PAL has a higher resolution (720x576) in regards to NTSC
(720x480) at a lower framerate (25 instead of 30 frames per
second).

This should also transmit to a projection (if a computer or DVD
player is used for example) and 35mm film.

However, it can introduce all sort of problems for you to work
with. Especially if you want to make an NTSC compliant DVD
(in which case you will loose the extra resolution and it will
look worse than when it was shot in NTSC to begin with).

Also see the following threads for some of my thoughts on this
matter:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36212
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=35912

In my opinion people are too concerned with resolution....

Stephen Finton June 6th, 2005 10:25 PM

HC1000 Exposure Trouble?
 
Hello everybody!

I've got a good one for you, I'm sure.

I recently bought 2 HC1000s and have been piddling with one of them for a couple of days to get the feel of its capabilities. I noticed that everything I was viewing/recording on it was a bit overexposed. I know the conversion for the EXPOSURE BAR and did an experiment recording brief sections at what was supposed to be very high F-Stop settings but I seem to only get it to go to F4.8 and then the next step over is a fully closed iris. Blip!

What the hell am I doing wrong? I've gone manual on everything! Have I missed a setting? I can take it up to 18dB no problem but I leap this gap from F4.8 to CLOSED.

Oh and I've been playing back what I have recorded, using the DATA CODE option, so I can see what settings it has.

Boyd Ostroff June 7th, 2005 05:08 AM

On the TRV-950 and PDX-10 (predecessors to the HC-1000) the data code readings are bogus. For example, it will say you're shooting at f 1.6 at full telephoto zoom which isn't physically possible (max f stop there is f 2.8).

However, these cameras have an undocumented internal ND filter wheel which is automatically used. It cannot be manually controlled or disabled. The idea is to force the camera to always use an iris opening in the lens' "sweet spot." So I suspect this is what you're seeing, after stopping down to f4.8 the camera inserts the progressively larger ND filters instead of closing the iris further. If you're in auto mode it will start increasing the shutter speed when it reaches the limit of what the ND filters can do. You simply can't force the camera to use a small iris opening.

But this is what I find interesting: on the TRV-950 and PDX-10 the data code gives bogus readings saying that you're shooting at f8, f11, etc. when in fact it's at a larger opening with an ND filter. From what you're saying, it sounds like Sony may be more honest with the data code on the HC-1000 - although still not admitting the existence of the ND filters.

Try this experiment: put the camera in manual mode and shine a flashlight into the lens. Look closely as you turn the exposure wheel. You should be able to see the little ND filters move into the optical path.

OTOH, I suppose it's possible that there's something wrong with your camera. Do both of them behave the same way? But it sounds like the camera is behaving as I would expect, except the data code is more accurate than my PDX-10.

Stephen Finton June 7th, 2005 12:40 PM

I imagine it might be correct because the next step to the left on the exposure bar is closed and the viewfinder goes from somewhat overexposed to completely dark (Closed). You can see the picture drop into darkness like you've turned off the screen and it has a very slow discharge time.

Why would it allow you to close the iris but not allow you gradually get there? And is the sweet spot your referring to some pseudo auto mode? Is this limitation crippled in software or is it a physical limitation? Do more expensive cameras not limit you?

I don't remember my Digital8 dropping off into darkness at the end of the exposure bar. Is this because its shutter is automatic?

Sorry so many questions. I am confused when something is labeled manual but still limits you.

Boyd Ostroff June 7th, 2005 01:54 PM

Actually my VX-2000 does the same thing when you turn the exposure wheel to the limit. I don't know if it is physically closing the iris or just fading out somehow, but it seems to be intentional.

The "sweet spot" is a term that refers to a range of f-stops where the lens performs best. Typically it's centered somewhere around the f4 mark. All lenses show this characteristic to one degree or another, but more expensive ones are probably less finicky.

On small chip camcorders it's pretty standard nowadays to have the ND wheel inside and not to give users any direct access to it. I don't think you'll find this on 1/3" camcorders however.

A little searching will tell you a lot more...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=14193
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=15728
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=25598

Stephen Finton June 7th, 2005 03:42 PM

Thanks for the links!

I wouldn't have joined the forum if I knew what to search for. I had no idea what I was experiencing. When I looked up exposure and F-Stop, you can imagine the number of posts I got back.

Boyd Ostroff June 7th, 2005 04:03 PM

Glad to be able to help. Was thinking about your situation a little more...

1. I think the "fade out" you describe is an intentional effect on the Sony cameras, so you can just turn the exposure wheel to get a smooth fade out at the end of a scene. It is probably fading to black electronically and not physically closing the iris.

2. The overexposed look at f4 (are you sure it wasn't f4.8?) while shooting outdoors is consistent with what you'd expect in manual mode. The camera had dropped in the darkest ND filter already. And it just won't LET you stop the iris down any further. You're in manual mode so it can't up the shutter speed. Under those conditions you will be overexposed no matter what. So if you want to shoot outdoors in manual mode, pick up a couple different screw-in ND filters, that's what I use. I don't usually like the look of high shutter speeds (creates sort of a jerky stroboscopic effect on motion).

Stephen Finton June 7th, 2005 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff
Glad to be able to help. Was thinking about your situation a little more...

1. I think the "fade out" you describe is an intentional effect on the Sony cameras, so you can just turn the exposure wheel to get a smooth fade out at the end of a scene. It is probably fading to black electronically and not physically closing the iris.

It actually says "CLOSED", where once there was F4.8, when I review the video with camera data turned on.

Quote:

2. The overexposed look at f4 (are you sure it wasn't f4.8?) while shooting outdoors is consistent with what you'd expect in manual mode. The camera had dropped in the darkest ND filter already. And it just won't LET you stop the iris down any further. You're in manual mode so it can't up the shutter speed. Under those conditions you will be overexposed no matter what. So if you want to shoot outdoors in manual mode, pick up a couple different screw-in ND filters, that's what I use. I don't usually like the look of high shutter speeds (creates sort of a jerky stroboscopic effect on motion).
It was F4.8 when I tried it indoors. Outdoors for some reason I could only get it down to F4. Perhaps it has something to do with what I was shooting? A parking lot at noon time. A lot of glare on windshields. Still I would think this would have allowed the camera to kick in one of those ND filters you've been talking about.

Boyd Ostroff June 7th, 2005 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Finton
Still I would think this would have allowed the camera to kick in one of those ND filters you've been talking about.

Oh I think it already was maxxed out with the ND filters, but they just weren't enough to handle the really bright conditions. I've shot out in the sun with an NDx8 screw-in filter and needed to raise the shutter speed to get a good exposure.

And remember, they're double secret ND filters, so the data code isn't going to tell you they're being used ;-) Seriously.

Let me see if I can find Tom around somewhere, this thread is right up his alley...

Stephen Finton June 7th, 2005 05:26 PM

I got the gist of it from your threads you posted for me to read. Funny thing is the guy in the top thread has a TRV510 as well. It was the thing that was throwing me off because I could go from as bright as the camera allowed(GAIN GRAIN) to completely black in 24 even steps. I kinda wanted that with this camera but I guess that's the nature of something so bent on collecting light.

I gotta find my flashlight.

Tom Hardwick June 8th, 2005 05:52 AM

First to Boyd: Thanks for the wake-up call. Oh, and your VX2000 most certainly does have (and can use) apertures smaller than f/11. Using the focused Maglight technique you can see the aperture blades gently closing as they go through f/16, f/22 and f/32. The camera will even film at these tiny apertures, but to do so you have to have the Auto Shutter set to off in the menu and you have to film in bright light and ignore the silent scream for the ND filters to be inserted.

For all those who don't know what the degrading effects of diffraction look like, film at (a genuine) f/11, f/16 or smaller. I say 'a genuine' simply because so many camcorders these days tell you you're filming at f11 (say) and even on replay insist the aperture was f/11, but of course it's somewhere around f/4 with lots of internal (and invisible) ND filtration applied.

tom.

Tom Hardwick June 8th, 2005 06:10 AM

To Stephen. The HC1000 replaced the TRV950 and although I haven't had a good look at one, I know the 950/PDX10 pretty intimately. I suspect the 1000 is a repackaged 950, saving Sony money along the way. And you're right - more expensive cameras don't cripple you in this way.

As such I'd expect the 1000 to use the same lens/chip-block assembly and have the three neutral density filters working in conjunction with the aperture blades. Turning the 'exposure' wheel is simply altering the exposure, and this is a combination of actual aperture (the hole caused by the diaphragm blades) and three ever denser ND filters being raised one after another into the light path. Often you can be filming through 2/3rds of a filter, but the edge of the filter is so out of focus you don't see that effect on film. It's not nice though, but I guess it's cheaper than having a curved, vari-density ND fitted inside the lens.

All camcorders that don't have external ND switches do this. So Canon, Panasonic, Sharp, JVC - all do it, and don't tell you. On replay they interpolate, giving you a readout aperture figure of f/8 (say), even though the shot has been taken at an actual aperture of f/4 + an internal ND4 filter.

This trick is used by manufacturers simply because diffraction (especially at short focal lengths (wide-angle) and tiny chips) robs you of lots of sharpness. Diffraction effects start as soon as the aperture blades start to close BTW.

As Boyd says, the replay readout on the 950 is very suspect and I guess the 1000 is using the same firmware, so take the info with a pinch of salt. Also remember that the readout (of shutter speeds and apertures) is only to the nearest half stop, so is only vaguely right anyway.

tom.

Boyd Ostroff June 8th, 2005 06:23 AM

Tom, based on what Stephen said I think the firmware in the HC-1000 is different, even though the camera behaves the same way. If you read his posts again you'll see that the data code never claimed he was shooting at an iris opening any smaller than f4.8 or f4.0, depending on the situation. Then when he turned the exposure wheel one click further it faded completely to black. As you say, on the 950 the data code makes bogus claims of shooting at f8 or f11.

So it sounds like the HC-1000 is accurately reporting the iris opening, it just isn't admitting that it augments that with ND filters.

Stephen Finton June 8th, 2005 06:38 AM

How many ND filters are in the 950 and PDX10?

Tom Hardwick June 8th, 2005 06:56 AM

Three Stephen. Boyd, I see you're right. That would suggest then that there's a good few aperture wheel clicks beyond f/4 (possibly 6 of them while the NDs are progressively pushed up into place) before the auto fade to black.

Does the 1000 also claim that f/1.6 was used at full telephoto?

I found I could film at smaller (real) apertures in the PDX10. Make sure you've locked down the shutter speed and got all three of the internals on lens-axis by shooting a white wall in sunlight, say. The automation - in an effort to give correct exposure at the expense of sharpness, will indeed film at apertures smaller than the sweet spot.

tom.

Stephen Finton June 8th, 2005 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick
Does the 1000 also claim that f/1.6 was used at full telephoto?

I have no problem getting it to stay at f1.6, whether in wide or telephoto. It acts the way I would expect it to act manually, to the right of the exposure bar, all the way to 18dB Gain @ f1.6.

I'm going to have to get my Digital8 back from a friend to check it again because I don't think I was ever so critical of its performance, as I am the HC1000. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I bought it for $350 at a pawn shop? Not too shabby as it is a TRV510, SONY's flagship model the 1st year they were manufactured. It was, at one time $1500!

Does physically closing the iris create distortion of the image after the sweet spot? Is this why ND filters are used in a professional camera? I guess these are the only answers I was looking for...

Boyd Ostroff June 8th, 2005 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Finton
I have no problem getting it to stay at f1.6, whether in wide or telephoto.

That's one of the points which Tom and I were making. It is physically impossible to shoot at f1.6 while zoomed to full telephoto, so that data code is bogus. At full telephoto the lens is rated at f2.8 IIRC - look at the specs in the back of your manual.

Stephen Finton June 8th, 2005 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff
That's one of the points which Tom and I were making. It is physically impossible to shoot at f1.6 while zoomed to full telephoto, so that data code is bogus. At full telephoto the lens is rated at f2.8 IIRC - look at the specs in the back of your manual.

You think that's why they went with an exposure bar instead of true f-stops? I guess I shouldn't gripe about a camera that is too sensitive to light. I just do not want to have to start an ND filter collection. I bought 2 cameras, afterall so everything costs twice as much now.

Tom Hardwick June 8th, 2005 09:46 AM

Boyd's right, the lens loses a good 1.5 stops from its way from wide-angle to telephoto, so if you need f1.6 to give correct eposure, zooming in (even a little bit) will progressively under-expose the footage if you're in manual.

"Does physically closing the iris create distortion of the image after the sweet spot? Is this why ND filters are used in a professional camera?" No Stephen. Stopping down simply increases the depth of field for any given focal length, while at the same time reducing the amount of light that gets through the aperture. So f/5.6 lets in half the light of f/4, but also suffers slightly more diffraction losses.

ND filters are available on more professional kit so thay you can remain in much greater control of the aperture in use, specifying shallow depth of field (blurry backgrounds for instance). Better kit also uses multi-bladed diaphragms - the TRV900 for instance had a proper 6 bladed diaphragm, which meant it had accurate circles at small apertures. The two bladed version in the 950 / 1000 is cheap, but doesn't give anywhere near as nice specular highlights on chrome or water.

tom.

Stephen Finton June 8th, 2005 01:08 PM

Okay. Here's the deal.

When I go into auto exposure it changes from f1.6 to f2.4 as I zoom in. Have you guys been talking about auto exposure all this time?

You're not just pulling my leg because I bought an HC1000, are you? ;)

When I use manual exposure, with the shutter locked on 1/60 and set it to f1.6, it doesn't change from f1.6 as I zoom. This is what I was expecting and you guys are telling me it's wrong?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network