sony950 at DVinfo.net

November 25th, 2002, 09:46 AM

Has any one had any problems with very bad vertical flare( from the chip) of any thing bright at top of frame. I have found this to be a real problem and have been having an augment with Sony who have fobbed me off so far. I made a comparison to the old 900 that I have (not fully working due to lens damage) and found a fantastic difference Sony agree but say it's the characteristic of the new chip they are using. I have some frame grabs if any one would like to see.

Steven Forrest · November 25th, 2002, 06:37 PM

This has been the basis for many lengthy discussions over the last several months. See this thread as an example:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3382

There are many others. If you want to get rid of the TRV950 and get the far better VX2000, check out my sale of my newly acquired, but never used, (there is a story that also) VX2000/Sennheiser Shotgun Microphone system at:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=4761

I'll be happy to discuss the TRV950 and VX2000 with you via private E-mail, since I think this issue has been beaten to death on this forum and I don't think the group owner wants it opened again.

Steven Forrest

Kenn Jolemore · November 26th, 2002, 04:55 AM

Nick , I would be interested in seeing what kind of problem you are having as some of these cam's have a problem and some do not . E-mail the pic's to me if you would.
KennJ
kjolemore@aol.com

Frank Granovski · November 26th, 2002, 01:35 PM

Re: "Has any one had any problems with very bad vertical flare (from the chip)."

How do you know it's from the chip/s? It's probably from the lens and/or filter from the light/sun hitting it. Try shooting with the light/sun behind you or to your rear, 45 degree angle. Then see if you still have this flare. (You probably won't.) Try it, and let us know.

November 27th, 2002, 01:54 AM

I am sure it is not a lense flare because of the way it shows up in picture coming off the bright source. And also how it is different on the 900. I am emailing you the test shots that show this clearly. Also Sony have confirmed to me that they agree with my findings.

Frank Granovski · November 27th, 2002, 03:34 AM

Thanks for the pics. I see nothing wrong. I just have to go back into my mail program and hit send. I wrote some comments for you.

Kenn Jolemore · November 27th, 2002, 09:12 AM

After looking at the pic's I see nothing supprising in the results. Your 950 has a little more of a reaction than mine but shooting bright light head on is bound to cause a bad quality no matter what camera you use.
KennJ

Margus Kivilaan · November 27th, 2002, 10:39 AM

Basically you can find some flare with any CCD cam when you try hard enough. In some light conditions we managed to have that effect even with DSR-500, 2/3 chip camera. It seems to depend a bit from optics used. Can be that effect varies on some specific cam exemplars, i tried one pdx10 in extreme conditions and got some flare. Do'nt think it occures in usual conditions. Have read comments, where guys say flare is disturbingly big.

regards, Margus

Jeff Donald · November 29th, 2002, 04:19 AM

Nic,

Steven Forrest is correct on this matter. I looked at image files from Steven and others. In my opinion, in the majority of the images, the blooming was normal for this type of camera. However, in all the cases, several of the images went beyond what I would consider normal. Any remedy or consideration will have to come from the manufacture. Completion and satisfactory conclusion of your complaint will only come from your forceful and persistent discussions with Sony. Good luck.

Jeff

John Jay · November 29th, 2002, 01:09 PM

the final image is not the whole story, exposure settings need to be known

for example shooting in automatic portrait mode in bright conditions will set the aperture to maximum and push the shutter speed up to compensate for correct exposure resulting in vertical smear on any cam - (reason integration of large values over a very short time slice in the CCD processor)

My experience of the 950 is flawless, but then again I exclusively shoot manual.

Kenn Jolemore · November 30th, 2002, 05:44 AM

Good point Jay.Knowing when to get out of auto is a learned reponse born from practice.
I have suggested numerous times that this camera has a way of being bought by folks who might be best off getting a trv27 instead . Alot of the problems I have read about are the result of inexperienced people with their first camcorder being dissapointed because they spent alot of money and the darn thing won't just do things magicaly.
KennJ

Paul Tauger · November 30th, 2002, 09:35 AM

Sony machines use proprietary HAD CCDs, which have a tendency to cause pinpoint light sources to spread vertically. HAD CCDs tend to be more light-sensitive than standard CCDs, which is the tradeoff for the vertical spreading. All Sony machines will do this -- I have a VX2000 (which I love), which does this, too.

December 1st, 2002, 02:15 PM

The main point I am makeing is about the difference between the way the old 900 handled these bight elements in picture and the new 950. All my test were done at the same exposure shutter speed etc. I think that as Paul points out its the problem is with the HAD CCD's that do somethings better but flare like ... and I don't like them I guess partly because I am more used to shooting on film where we only have to worry about lense flare which can be used dramatically which is more like the way the 900 worked. Any one got a PAL 900 for sale. Thanks for all the feed back everyone. Cheers Nic

John Jay · December 1st, 2002, 05:51 PM

nic

if you wish to trade your pal 950 for a pal 900 plus adjustment contact me

krisp9@yahoo.com

j

November 25th, 2002, 09:46 AM	#1
nic knowland Posts: n/a	sony950 Has any one had any problems with very bad vertical flare( from the chip) of any thing bright at top of frame. I have found this to be a real problem and have been having an augment with Sony who have fobbed me off so far. I made a comparison to the old 900 that I have (not fully working due to lens damage) and found a fantastic difference Sony agree but say it's the characteristic of the new chip they are using. I have some frame grabs if any one would like to see.

November 26th, 2002, 04:55 AM	#3
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	Yes Please Nick , I would be interested in seeing what kind of problem you are having as some of these cam's have a problem and some do not . E-mail the pic's to me if you would. KennJ kjolemore@aol.com __________________ KennJ

November 27th, 2002, 01:54 AM	#5
nic knowland Posts: n/a	sony 950 chip flare. I am sure it is not a lense flare because of the way it shows up in picture coming off the bright source. And also how it is different on the 900. I am emailing you the test shots that show this clearly. Also Sony have confirmed to me that they agree with my findings.

November 27th, 2002, 09:12 AM	#7
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	After looking at the pic's I see nothing supprising in the results. Your 950 has a little more of a reaction than mine but shooting bright light head on is bound to cause a bad quality no matter what camera you use. KennJ __________________ KennJ

November 30th, 2002, 05:44 AM	#11
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	Good point Jay.Knowing when to get out of auto is a learned reponse born from practice. I have suggested numerous times that this camera has a way of being bought by folks who might be best off getting a trv27 instead . Alot of the problems I have read about are the result of inexperienced people with their first camcorder being dissapointed because they spent alot of money and the darn thing won't just do things magicaly. KennJ __________________ KennJ

November 25th, 2002, 06:37 PM	#2
Steven Forrest Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Lake Oswego, OR Posts: 43	This has been the basis for many lengthy discussions over the last several months. See this thread as an example: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3382 There are many others. If you want to get rid of the TRV950 and get the far better VX2000, check out my sale of my newly acquired, but never used, (there is a story that also) VX2000/Sennheiser Shotgun Microphone system at: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=4761 I'll be happy to discuss the TRV950 and VX2000 with you via private E-mail, since I think this issue has been beaten to death on this forum and I don't think the group owner wants it opened again. Steven Forrest

November 26th, 2002, 01:35 PM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Re: "Has any one had any problems with very bad vertical flare (from the chip)." How do you know it's from the chip/s? It's probably from the lens and/or filter from the light/sun hitting it. Try shooting with the light/sun behind you or to your rear, 45 degree angle. Then see if you still have this flare. (You probably won't.) Try it, and let us know.

November 27th, 2002, 03:34 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks for the pics. I see nothing wrong. I just have to go back into my mail program and hit send. I wrote some comments for you.

November 27th, 2002, 10:39 AM	#8
Margus Kivilaan Regular Crew Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tallinn, Estonia Posts: 123	Basically you can find some flare with any CCD cam when you try hard enough. In some light conditions we managed to have that effect even with DSR-500, 2/3 chip camera. It seems to depend a bit from optics used. Can be that effect varies on some specific cam exemplars, i tried one pdx10 in extreme conditions and got some flare. Do'nt think it occures in usual conditions. Have read comments, where guys say flare is disturbingly big. regards, Margus

November 29th, 2002, 04:19 AM	#9
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Nic, Steven Forrest is correct on this matter. I looked at image files from Steven and others. In my opinion, in the majority of the images, the blooming was normal for this type of camera. However, in all the cases, several of the images went beyond what I would consider normal. Any remedy or consideration will have to come from the manufacture. Completion and satisfactory conclusion of your complaint will only come from your forceful and persistent discussions with Sony. Good luck. Jeff

November 29th, 2002, 01:09 PM	#10
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	the final image is not the whole story, exposure settings need to be known for example shooting in automatic portrait mode in bright conditions will set the aperture to maximum and push the shutter speed up to compensate for correct exposure resulting in vertical smear on any cam - (reason integration of large values over a very short time slice in the CCD processor) My experience of the 950 is flawless, but then again I exclusively shoot manual.

November 30th, 2002, 09:35 AM	#12
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	Sony machines use proprietary HAD CCDs, which have a tendency to cause pinpoint light sources to spread vertically. HAD CCDs tend to be more light-sensitive than standard CCDs, which is the tradeoff for the vertical spreading. All Sony machines will do this -- I have a VX2000 (which I love), which does this, too.

December 1st, 2002, 02:15 PM	#13
nic knowland Posts: n/a	sony 950 chip flare. The main point I am makeing is about the difference between the way the old 900 handled these bight elements in picture and the new 950. All my test were done at the same exposure shutter speed etc. I think that as Paul points out its the problem is with the HAD CCD's that do somethings better but flare like ... and I don't like them I guess partly because I am more used to shooting on film where we only have to worry about lense flare which can be used dramatically which is more like the way the 900 worked. Any one got a PAL 900 for sale. Thanks for all the feed back everyone. Cheers Nic

December 1st, 2002, 05:51 PM	#14
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	nic if you wish to trade your pal 950 for a pal 900 plus adjustment contact me krisp9@yahoo.com j