Does the trv950 have an "aperture priority" mode? Aperture Priority allows the user to set (and hold) a specific aperture setting, then the camera will automatically adjust shutter speed to ensure correct exposure. This feature is useful to control depth-of-field.

Update: Apparently, the trv900 has an "AEA" mode that is an aperture priority mode. Does this exist on the trv950?

I'm not sure that this can really be done. Just looked in my PDX-10 manual and it isn't mentioned. However you can certainly set for manual mode and adjust the iris and shutter wherever you like.

Personally, it seems like it would be rather disconcerting to see the shutter speed change as you film something. I just don't use any of the auto functions on my camera however, so I've never looked into this. Maybe someone else has a more definitive answer.

You're right - the AEA mode on the 900 allowed you to set an aperture and have the camera determine the shutter speed automatically. This worked well, but in bright light did sometimes give me 'shutter-stutter' where speeds were too high to give fluid motion to my video footage.

But the 950 is not the camera to allow you to control depth of field Ming Dong, fo reasons I'll explain here.

Nowhere does the Sony specification make it clear that exposure is controlled (in both manual and automatic) not by varying the aperture but by applying more or less ND. This camera is going to be used in the shutter priority mode for most of it's life and most people are going to assume that turning that exposure wheel will be setting an aperture by varying diaphragm blades. Not so.

Any photographer would be right to assume this as using different apertures can affect not only the DOF but also the way highlights and out of focus areas look. Small apertures (especially with such tiny chips) also allow you to control the amount of diffraction, so for a softer look you'd want to film at f8 and 11.

What actually happens is that if you're filming at full telephoto in the manual exposure mode the camera has all of one stop to play with. What this means is that (contrary to the 'Display' information that's effectively useless) the camera will open to full aperture of f2.8. If it gets brighter - or you want to film at a smaller aperture - you can film at f4. If it gets brighter still the camera has no more apertures up its sleeve - it now resorts to using the first of the three ND filters. If it gets brighter still the second and then the third ND come into the optical path.

ND filters won't affect the DOF at all of course. But for aperture priority the closest you'll get is the 'portrait' mode, where the camera clings onto wide apertures and varies the shutter speed to give correct exposure.

tom.

The GL2 may have a smaller side-screen, but it makes up for this in being much more of a photographer's camera. Longer zoom, better in low light, far less CCD smear, bigger chips, switchable NDs, choice of apertures, reliable 'display', apertures and gain-up shown in v/f.

Go the Sony route if compactness and discreetness are paramount. Also Info-lithium is great and so is the screen however.

tom.

The GL2 lacks progressive scan but does have Frame Mode and will give a progressive look at the expense of a little resolution. I've used this feature on several Panasonic camcorders and I prefer the look to interlaced for most of my events but bear in mind that frame mode and handheld don't usually mix well.

Here is a good article by Steve Mullen on the differences between progressive scan and frame mode.

http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/

You say the GL2 lacks progressive scan, but so too does the TRV950. Another loss in the move from TRV900.

But how does it affect your results, the final video?Shooting in frame mode or progressive (frame mode is progressive---they're are both capturing frames), the final video when played back in fields will look slightly choppy, with movement in the footage. In other words, interlaced looks smooth or natural, progressive shot footage played back interlaced does not look as smooth or natural (with movement in the footage).

You say the GL2 lacks progressive scan, but so too does the TRV950. Another loss in the move from TRV900.

I personally wouldn't call 15fps progressive scan much of a loss on the TRV950 but I do prefer the TRV900 to the TRV950 (sans PDX10).

This is a bit off topic, but the GL2 brochure states that "the GL2 includes a 16:9 recording mode, which applies an electronic anamorphic stretch..."

Is that simiilar to the capability of the pdx10?

Does it blur when shooting action sequences?Only if you pan/tilt/zoom too fast. :-))Does it require better lighting?Not to my knowledge.(Remember, I shoot indoors with available lighting).Then you should be looking at cams with bigger CCDs, cams that don't require as much light as the small chip'd ones.

Frank is on the mark here. The bottom line is you will not be all to happy with either of these camcorders and should look at cam's with a minimum of 1/3"CCD's due to your subject matter.
KennJ

Is that simiilar to the capability of the pdx10?

Its similar in the fact that it applies an anamorphic squeeze to get the 16:9 footage to tape but it lacks the increased angle of view and has noticeably less resolution than the PDX10 16:9 mode.

Here is an illustration of how the PDX10 achieves its quality 16:9

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

Here is a great link on how camcorders achieve 16:9 either by letterbox or an anamorphic squeeze.

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

I just purchased a brand new TRV950. I connected it to my mac via ilink cable and my computer does not recognize the camera.

(I have a PD100 that works perfectly w/the cable and my computer)

I went to the Apple store and to B&H and neither place could get the computer to recognized the camera.

Has anyone else had problems with this? Is the iLink port broken on my camera or has Sony made it so the Mac video editing software no longer works.

Before I called Sony, I wanted to put this out and see if anyone has any suggestions.

Thanks.

Sure sounds like a camera problem; you did the correct tests and found the same computer could recognize another camera using the same cable, and another computer couldn't recognize the camera.

There are plenty of people using the TRV-950 and its sibling the PDX-10 with FCP on the Mac. Does everything else work properly with the camera? Have you tried pressing the RESET button (on the PDX-10 it's under the LCD screen next to the zebra switch)?

You may also want to try checking out the iMovie discussion forums, where the issue of various cams not being recognized by iMovie comes up: apple/discussions/iMovie. Sometimes it actually depends on at what point you turn on or attach the cam; seems to vary from cam to cam, believe it or not.

Hello,

I'm looking to sell my PD150 which I bought for a film project that is since completed. I find the PD150 too bulky and conspicuous to use on a regular basis.

I'm interested in hearing opinions comparing the two cameras, other then the obvious differences of no timecode or XLR inputs.

Also, is there an hours meter on the 950 like there is on the PD150, I'm thinking about buying used.

Thanks for any advice.

Jeff

Hello,


Myabe take a look at the PDX-10 also.. You will then have XLR inputs, 16:9 ,DVCAM and a very nice camera in a small package..

Mike M.

I'd second Mike's comments. The PDX-10 has all those features that I'm sure you've come to like on the PD-150. I don't think the 950 will have an hour meter but the PDX-10 does and you can set timecode. The XLR box is removable for those times you want to be inconspicuous. but it still records through builtin mikes like the 950.

Thanks for the feedback. So, my next question is: When buying a used camera what is a generally accepted amount of hours. I assume that "taoe run" hours are the most important. Is that correct?

I agree that the move from the 150 to the 950 will be a big backwards step, and that the PDX10 is a more logical move. The 950 doesn't have an hours meter, no. Tape run hours are one thing, but in the engineering world of tape transport, keeping running is a simple operation. It's the lacing, unlacing, loading, unloading that demand so much of a mechanical system. It's a chain of events that has to be set into synchronous motion.

Moving to a 950 will make you wonder where all your wide-angle coverage has gone, as well as all the light. Nice side-screen though, with clever party-pieces like touch operation. It's three menus deep even on the side-screen!

tom.

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.

Is that because the electricity supply in the USA has 60 Hz while the PAL makes 50 fields per secYes. 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.

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/TRV950/chirt/wide/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 (http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/)?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!