I can vouch for that. The AGC boosts the record level up automatically. If you wanted to have a higher recording level, you can do it manually also and get the same effect. But along with the higher record levels, you get more noise. This is especially apparent if you use the built-in mic.
After an extensive search and demo period I ended up with an on-camera mic solution for the VX2000, which I think, is about as good as possible without spending mega-bucks. Actually some of the DVinfo.Net Community helped me a great deal settling on the following mic combo which gives far better sound than the built-in VX2000 mic and cost ~$650.
For a Mic I chose the Sennheiser ME66 with the K6 power supply (with the built in AA battery, not phantom power) and added the MZW 66 Pro Foam windscreen.
For a shock mount I needed to do a bit of jury-rigging. I bought the Senn MZQ6 camera mount and the Senn MZS6 Shock mount. I took them apart (per Senn's recommendation) and use the shock mount top from the MZS6 and the lower part of the MZQ6 camera mount to attach the system to the hot shoe of the VX2000. Very shock resistant and not as obtrusive as some mounts out there.
I bought a XLR to Mini-plug cable from Equipment Emporium (XLR-H8DV) to connect the mic system to the VX2000 mini-plug and control the sound level with manual vol control and use a pair of Sony MDR-706 Professional Monitor Folding Headphones to listen to the sound.
The ME66 does not extend too far over the end of the camcorder so I can't see it in the picture. If you want an even longer shotgun end for the K6, you can screw on the ME67! This might show, however, but you might be able to get it positioned back far enough over the camcorder in the shock mount to keep even that monster out of the picture!
My system cost me about $650 and I don't think I could have gotten as good on camera sound from any other combo for the price.
I am a beginner at all this stuff, so I'm not sure the long term will prove my purchases ideal. BUT, I couldn't see skimping on the Mic System once I had the fabulous video quality of the VX2000!
Yes the real pros don't have the mic on the camera, but for me, this was the only option. I'm not doing pro work but still wanted the best combo of picture and sound in ONE package as I could get without spending way, way, to much. Thus the above combo! It still was WAY more money than I wanted to spend for "home videos", but in the end, I decided to go for it!
SO, if you want an on camera sound setup, I think I found a pretty good one. You get nice clean sound at reasonable input levels and avoid any (I better say, most) camera generated noise.
Thanks to all who helped me out with this.
Steve
P.S. Now I just have to START using the bloody thing!

Thanks everyone for all your info.!

Can someone tell me where I can get the cheapest Vx2000 or TRV 950 in USA. Also shall I go for PAL or NTSC. There are some companies like Broadwayphoto.com and AandMphotoworld.com selling them cheaper but some one told me they sell JUST the camera not the camera kit as it comes from SONY. So that measn they even charge you separately for things which come inisde one SONY box. All suggestion are welcome. Please tell em what is the latest and cheapest source for both of them and which one is better worth its money.

And in Ebay I always meet someone who wants to do a money scam by telling you down to earth price but actually just wants money sent to him thru Westernunion in Paris or somewhere in Spain and then he runs away with it leaving me emty handed. Some people operating on Ebay have even made their FAKE escrow sites to get free money. One I met told me to deposit money at www.corporateescrow.com whic is nothing but fake.


Thanks,


Sanjay

Sanjay,

We'd like to help everyone who asks this same set of questions. But if we do, then we spend all our time answering the same set of questions. You need to do some research on the subject. Not ask us to do it for you.

Use the search on this forum, look at the 950 forum on this site, on Dejavu and other locations, read the postings here, and at some of the other specialist sites. Read the USENET forums like rec.video.com, etc.

In your search you will find out who are the reliable suppliers and whom you should avoid. Then when you have specific questions maybe we can answer them and will be happy to do so.

The reason you may be getting scammed is because you are looking for too great a bargain. There is no free lunch in the video world.

See these threads -- post a reply to these particular threads if you have further questions.

Best source (not the cheapest, but the best):

http://new.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4096

About dealing with Broadway:

http://new.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=278

About dealing with Ebay:

http://new.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2724

http://new.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2954

Thanks. I am new to this forum/board. Dont want to pay unreasonably more. I think I appreciate Chris Hurd's suggestions more than Mike Rehmus's preachings.

Also look here:

http://www.urbanfox.tv/workbooks/index.htm

Thanks Mike to you too. I appreciate this reply of yours. :)

Mike, just checked the site u sent me. I can say it is nothing but EXCELLENT.

katiyar_sanjay
If you had included your email I could have sent you a list. I'm surprised at the reaction to your postthough.

The best rule of thumb is if the price seems to good to be true, then it is. Beware of prices that are dramatically lower then the competition.

If you take the chance you could be getting grey market goods (no warranty). It could be a refurbished camera. The retailer may strip the accessories (battery, charger etc) from the box and sell them separately. You may be required to buy shoddy 3rd pary accessories to get the sweetheart deal.

You may not get the camera at all.

It's best to buy from an established dealer. The dealers that Chris recomends are reliable and offer the best available pricing. They have to ,other wise the word will get out and no one will deal with them. The customer base from this forum is very well educated and they just won't pay more than they have to or accept anything but the best service.

<<<-- Originally posted by katiyar_sanjay : Thanks. I am new to this forum/board. Dont want to pay unreasonably more. I think I appreciate Chris Hurd's suggestions more than Mike Rehmus's preachings. -->>>

Look, Sanjay, it's not that I don't appreciate neophites. We all were and still all are in some aspect of video world.

But you asked questions that you could have answered with a look at the titles of the postings on the first page of this particular forum. Had you done a search on the words 'Broadway' and 'ebay', for example, you would have found the comments on them too.

Maybe it's just the wrong phase of the moon for me today. I did not mean to insult you or chastise you. Only to guide you (grumpily, I admit and for which I appologize) to where the answers can be found.

Why did you ask the question regarding NTSC or PAL?

I know that in some aspects PAL is better than NTSC especially in terms of resolution it offers, although it has drawbacks like flickers etc etc. For me. I am in USA but belong to a country which uses PAL. So if PAL is better than NTSC for which may I dare to ask for everybody's suggestions then I can go for PAL and use a video convertor to use this camera while in USA. And in my home country nothing extra would be needed. If NTSC is superior than PAL then I can do the vice versa in my country.

Thanks.

I understand the question.

The question however, is not especially easy to answer. All we can do is give you the facts and let you decide.

1. It is still relatively difficult to view PAL tapes here in the US. The VCRs are expensive (around $400 for VHS) and somewhat hard to find. e.g., not off the shelf at your local discount store.

2. In Europe, many VCRs are now dual standard. That is they play both PAL and NTSC. I think all but the least expensive do this although I have not personally been in a EU electronics shop to check. This is via reports from various English and French friends. Your country may differ.

PAL is 625 horizontal lines of resolution played back at 50 Hz.
NTSC is 525 horizontal lines of resolution played back at 60 Hz.

From my observation, PAL looks slightly better than NTSC except I can see some flicker in the display caused by the slightly slow refresh rate (50 Hz.)

Taping using NTSC in PAL 'country' like the UK tends to show flicker in lights like flourescents and other gas-discarge lights because of the slight differences in frequency in shutter speeds. I beleive the reverse holds true too.

If you are planning to return home in a short period of time, I'd get a PAL unit and use some sort of converter or dual-standard television.

If, however, you are going to stay here (welcome) and/or want to edit your work, then it gets a bit more complicated.

I do ship tapes into PAL country. To do so, I shoot and master under NTSC and then have my duplicator run off a batch of PAL tapes. The quality is fairly good according to all reports.

If you wanted to ship PAL tapes home, you could, I suppose, use a PAL camcorder and buy a PAL VHS deck and master directly to the deck. I think most modern PAL vcrs will work OK in the US.

Perhaps someone else can comment on editing in native PAL here in the US. Many editing systems can be switched from one standard to the other.

There are some cameras (I think both the 950 and 2000 are not among them) that can operate in dual standard. In reality, I believe the only difference in NTSC and PAL camcorders is the firmware that is turned on in the camera. That is, they can do both if one has the magic key. I don't know anyone outside of Sony who has such a key.

If you were going to do a conversion to film, then PAL does deliver a slightly better final image according to those who do those things.

I think it is a hard choice with no clear-cut answer.

"But you asked questions that you could have answered with a look at the titles of the postings on the first page of this particular forum. Had you done a search on the words 'Broadway' and 'ebay', for example, you would have found the comments on them too.

Maybe it's just the wrong phase of the moon for me today. I did not mean to insult you or chastise you. Only to guide you (grumpily, I admit and for which I appologize) to where the answers can be found."

When I made a similar comment several months ago our fearless leader pulled the post and spanked me. I do understand exactly what you say Mike and I agree with your feelings that people should help themselves. They should also share some of the leg work to find answers. The only thing that I find upsetting is the double standard.

I just bought a VX2000 a few weeks ago from J&R in New York. They beat the lowest _authorized dealer_ price that I found on the Internet (Profeel) -- total, with shipping, was $2,330. J&R is very reliable (This is my second camcorder from them, and about my 5th major electronic item). They don't pressure you to buy junk, they ship on time, everything is brand new, sealed, in the box, US warranty. In short, I recommend them highly.

$2300 US is about the lowest legitimate price. Many times, however, it's worth paying a few dollars more for extra service. I paid $100 more so i could deal with a person face to face. I know that if I have a problem that their shop is a lot faster than the Sony warranty depot.

Hello, I have the opportunity to buy a used (8 months old) VX2000. I'll be going over to check the camera.

What should I be checking? Are there any known issues with this cam?

Thanks for your suggestions!

Randy

Has it got the audio noise mod?

How many hours (menu item)
Clean inside the tape door?
Many little bumps and nicks on outside usually means it was handled hard.
Any bright or dark pixels on the CCD, viewfinder or LCD panel?
Front lens surface clean and free from scratches.
Camera generallly clean and not dusty.
All controls operate freely
All controls actually affect their respective function.
Tripod socket still firmly attached on not partially pulled out of the body.
Microphone functional on both sides.
External microphone connection works in both mic and line
Headphone connection works
Lanc control works.
Batteries are in good shape
Lens cap is present.
Large viewfinder eyeshield is included
Viewfinder is clean and clear.

well i just bought a mic i can use for interviews and such, anyway i realized that when the plug goes all the way in the outlet i can only hear sound on the left side but when i pull the plug out just a little bit both sides can hear, however when its not fully in the plug tends to fall out.

Im wondering if anyone out there has come across this problem? and if so what did u do to fix it
thanks

Replace the plug with a stereo plug and it will work fine.

Buy a 90 degree (right angled) 1/8 mono female to stereo male adapter at Radio Shack. Your mic is mono and the camera mic input is stereo. A straight plug has the potential of getting hit and cracking the plug housing or damaging the jack.

thank you verymuch!

I just started browsing for a good wide-angle adapter and a good fisheye lens. I know Sony's wide angle is of good quality but I am not ready to pay the retail price before exploring other options. However I am wary of lenses on Ebay from providers like 47st photo that are selling brands I've never heard of.

What are your opinions in buying/dealing with WA and Fisheye lenses? Thanks.

P.S. What does it mean when a lens has a 'bayonett" mounting system?

For a fish-eye id get the Century Mark 11 .3 Fish-eye. And for just a normal wide angle lens id go for the Canon WD58H.

Alex

P.S. I no the century lens is a bit steep but man its freaking sweet when your field of view is 13mm, and still vary sharp
P.P.S. dont buy a Kenko lens unless u realy have to

Hi Alex,

I agree with papabyrd on the WD-58. Make sure you get the tulip shaped sunhood with it, it is shaped that way so you won't see vignetting when full wide from the hood.

I also think the Century Optics .55x Reversible is a good complement to the WD-58, although not a full zoom-through like the WD-58, it gives you two different angles - screw it on one way and it is a .55x, unscrew it, flip it around and screw it back on and it is a cool fish eye. About $240 or so, the glass is high quality with no chromatic aberration issues to speak of.

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/3/55x_reversible_waa/

interesting link with tests of placing a windscreen on VX2k mic etc.

http://www.bealecorner.com/vx2000/wind/VX2k-wind.html

Nice test but missing the fuzzy windsock from a pro source.

In the tests I've seen, using somewhat the same setup, the long-hair windsock makes a much larger contribution than shown in the referenced test.

In addition, the foam cover for the microphone is a contact envelope, not a blimp with foam held further away from the microphone. That, according to the guy who makes Light Wave blimps and socks, is a major element to really killing wind noise.

Rycote makes a fuzzy wind sock that for the Shure SM58 that will probably fit over the microphone on the 2000. I think I paid B&H about $50 for my copy.

I am in the process of getting 2 Sennheiser evolution wireless setups. One is a lavolier setup and the other is the model that attaches to any XLR mike. What is the best way to connect these to my VX-2000 at the same time (one into each channel)? Should I simply get a y-adapter from radio shack that goes from 2 female mono plugs to a male stereo plug? Although this seems like it should work, I won't have any ability to independently control the volume of the two channels. The Beachtek DXA-4 XLR adaptor looks nice if I want to incorporate XLR mikes via cables, but it only has the ability to deal with one mini input. To connect the other wireless channel into the DXA-4, I would need a mini to XLR adapter. Any recommendations on what would work best???

My Sennheiser evolution has a mini locking jack from the receiver to XLR. The sennheiser comes with the mini to mini, I just had the dealer cut off the mini and solder on an XLR.

My Senns came with both a mini2mini and a min2XLR as part of the package. I also purchased (not knowing that at the time) a 3rd party mini2XLR cable.

The Sennheiser part number for the mini2XLR cable is CL100. I find that from time-to-time I need the mini2mini cable too.

BTW, I recommend that you get a spare cable and maybe two spare antenna's. The cable is rugged but they all fail. The antennas are easy to lose. The loss of one of these essential items means you are dead in the water.

I even purchased an extra ME-2 microphone. Order number 05213. Since lav's fail quicker than any other microphone type (Mainly due to cable breaks), I thought I'd play it safe. Think I paid $98 at B&H.

Is it possible to use the one of the 2camera (or genearlly DVCamera) as an analog-DV or DV-Analog Converter???
Frank said it is called " AV-PASS Through" which most Sony Camera has.
it should be able to connect an AnalogSignal(VHS-Player) on your DV Camera, from there it converts the AnalogSignal directly to DV so I can send it via FireWire in to my PC, or do I have to record the Analog Signal first in my DV-Tape and then send it via Firewire??
And how about the other way sending DV Signal via FireWire in your Camera, then converting it directly to Analog Signal.
If it really works then there is no need to buy an extra Converter
from DAtaVideo DAC-2, which can do this.

Would be thankfull about all info.

ive used my sony PC110 & VX2000 for AD/DA with no problems to import VHS into FCP and output FCP to VHS etc. with the pass thru feature on the sonys there is no need to record the analog signal to a DV tape first before imprting into computer.
as far as standalone converters i have no experience . im sure other board members can elaborate more on this!

Wow!
Thanx alot for this nice info!
What about the other way when, sending the digital DV Signal from EditSoftware FCP, to your VHS Recorder?? Can I also do it directly, without recording it first on the DV Tape and then sending it to your VHS??
I just get the Standalone Converter from a friend,and it also works preety well, but spending 699Euro almost about 699$, is not wise,since the DV Camera with PassThrough can do the same as you mentioned.

In the US, the mentioned camcorders will convert in either direction as will the Sony and the higher-end Canopus converter. I don't know about the other products on the market.

However, Europe is treated differently than the US because of the additional import duties that are placed on camcorders that handle DV IN and OUT IIRC. Because of that, you need to check and insure that any camcorder you select will, in fact, convert in both directions.

The Sony stand-alone converter, which we use at the local community college with Mac G4's and either iMovie or FCP works very well. I think the Sony, which is no longer made, may still be available directly from Apple.

I paid $300 for it through their academic sales group in Texas.

Yes you are able to record to tape from FCP out FW into cam to analog VHS without recording to DV tape

well i am in Australia, and i used a very low end sony digital 8 camcorder, and i could shoot my scrubs or timeline straight down the firewire and then it passed through the camera and i could watch it on my tv, or record to vhs with no tape in the camera.

Nearly every single camcorder on the market will do this, infact this was an almost bottom of the range camera that was going this.

kermie

I deleted this particular comments as it was dumb.

The Studio One has 2 mini inputs. The beachtek has only one. Also the Studio One has ground1/ground 2 which I found comes in handy!

Please note NOVICE pre-purchase comparison, so expect many flaws. Just a beginners comments and to show I am making progress beyond comparing statistics. Comments appreciated. At local store compared my TRV9 to VX2000 and GL2, outdoor/indoor shoots. Store expert generally used GL2 and VX2000, I shot TRV9. First, GL2 and VX2000 expected to be better than TRV 9 and that was clearly demonstrated in all lighting conditions--MUCH better color. All cameras left in full auto (green zone) and that is worthy of criticism (why not use camera adjustments to fullest?). On the other hand, the store expert said he did not want me thinking he was biasing results by way he adjusted one camera over another; his personal preference he said was GL2 because newer technology. After shoot at store took tapes from each camera home, played back on TRV 9 to JVC consumer level TV using Y/C output. TV adjusted to mid range on all settings and left there for all comparisons. First tried to swap tapes in and out of TRV9 to compare but that was difficult. It did show GL2 plays back fine on TRV9 on SP tape speed (had read some posts about problems but guess only at LP).

Next loaded all tapes into Premiere on three tracks and lined up to compare. Second finding is that VX2000 and GL2 processed fine into Premiere 6.0 using my Pinnacle DV300 capture card and TRV9 to play tapes. Not knowing anything about this still had concerns about differences between GL2 and Sony CODECS or whatever. For comparison would "hide" one track after another which let me switch back and forth between same (in terms of lighting, zoom, etc) frames of each of three cameras. Following comparisons just between VX2000 and GL2 (TRV9 out of the running). And comparisons done on frame by frame "still" basis.

On cloudy day outdoor shooting VX 2000 seemed marginally better on color saturation and color brightness when shooting ToysRUs letters (oranges, yellows, greens, blues,reds) on gray brick building with red awning. Most noticable on red awning. Was a noticeable difference, but not enough to decide one or other.

Did notice a big difference on high contrast shot when sun came out of clouds and shown brightly on just one restaurant building (Chili's which is yellow/orange in color) leaving background clouds dark and surrounding parking lot in cloudy light. Here the VX 2000 had much better color accuracy and seperation between sun and cloudy areas (GL2 color seemed washed out in sunny area). Would expect this could be adjusted in manual settings. GL2 superior zoom was obvious and worthwhile to have when zooming on Mall Sign (very clear and of course 20X vs 12X for VX2000). Stayed at full range of optical only, no digital zooming.

Went to interior classroom in camera store with fluorescent lighting and also spotlights. Manual white balance adjusted for both cameras for lighting. Stood at same spot and shot subject and red jacket from about 20 feet away. In dim fluorescent both cameras excellent on brightness and color (shot ladies red jacket with black dots connected by black lines). Both cameras did excellent job on red jacket but at full zoom noticed some wavy gray lines running horizontally (I was mistaken in earlier post about this) across TV screen with GL2 and not VX2000--GL2 also zoomed in much tighter however. ZX2000 captured beige rug more accurately (GL2 had greenish cast) , but GL2 separated gray and black colors on subjects sweater (had man stand at front of room) more distinctly. Whiteboard in background had some light writing on it and VX2000 picked that up more distinctly than GL2, but also VX2 gave a tannish cast to whiteboard where GL2 clearly showed white. VX2 maybe a little more accurate on flesh tones (GL2 a little gray cast) and both zoomed with high detail on male subject clearly showing details (needed a shave).

Next turned fluorescents off and only had one downlight on (dark room) aimed at subject. I don't think we reset white balance. Both cameras excellent although VX2 seemed to pick up details a bit better. Subject was standing still, gesturing and talking in all of these shots so no panning or motion. Again, in this dark room the VX2 picked up faint writing on whiteboard better than GL2.

Recognizing all of this could be changed with camera manual adjustments it was still interesting in terms of how useful both cameras are in full auto setting. I was surprised that the low light did not more clearly separate the two cameras as it was not a "night and day" difference in my unpracticed eye and for this limited amount of shooting (hows that for denying all culpability).
I was also surprised that the one big difference occurred outdoors in the bright sun/shadow setting where the VX2000 was much better at least in full auto settings.(again this could probably be handled by manual settings on GL2).

At this point I wish the VX2000 had the GL2 zoom. I think I will opt to pay more (vs B&H) , buy both at local store (take one back later) and try both out at home as both are excellent cameras and hard to choose between. Again, if any of you have more suggestions on shots to distinquish between the two let me know.

I don't think the manual audio settings will affect me but will evaluate that more when I have camera at home.

It's my understanding that the VX2000 is the only camcorder in its class, including the GL2 and XL1S, to have 1/3" CCDs. The others use 1/4". How much difference this makes overall I haven't the technical background to say, but it is one of the reasons the VX2000 is so good in low light. I bought one (from B&H web) in July, adding it to a collection of one - the Sony TRV525 D-8. I couldn't be happier with it, given my budget for DV hobby.

David Hurdon
www.contentshop.tv

David,

The GL1/2 does infact use the smaller 1/4 chips, however the XL1/1s both have 1/3 inch CCDs with Pixel shift.

The larger chips do theoretically capture more light but the size of the pixels also play a big part in it. This is also why it is difficult to compare pixel count to CCD performance, just like Macs and PCs, more is not always better.

Traveling two days this week, but wanted to note that I did finally think to look at data code readouts ; just a quick summary is that in low light and dark light the GL2 lense was at max (1.? forgot to write down) and gain boosted between 12 and 18 db in many cases; VX2000 maximum iris was 2.6 with no gain under same lighting. However, given low quality of TV and my untrained eye at first glance the 12 and 18 db boost of GL2 was not an obvious problem to the casual observer. Again, this happened in full auto mode for both cameras. One other "adjustment" made was ND filters were switched in as prompted by camcorders in outside shooting.

Adrian

Thanks for the correction. I got the misinformation from a feature check table in the UK's Camcorder and DV Movie Maker Mag, Sept. 2002 edition, unless the European version is actually different. Another recent buyers guide (North American) indicates that they do both use the 1/3 inch CCDs but Canon at 270,000 pixels per CCD versus Sony at 380,000. You referred to this in general terms in your post. Do you know what the effect is, or is intended to be, of more versus larger?

David Hurdon

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hull : Traveling two days this week, but wanted to note that I did finally think to look at data code readouts ; just a quick summary is that in low light and dark light the GL2 lense was at max (1.? forgot to write down) and gain boosted between 12 and 18 db in many cases; VX2000 maximum iris was 2.6 with no gain under same lighting.

-------------------

Then you were far from stressing the VX-2000 in what was, in effect, for it, bright light. The VX-2000 lens opens to f1.6 and it has 18 dB of gain to play with. That is a massive low light advantage with regard to picture quality in scenes that are darker than what you shot in. The darker the scene, the more obvious the differences are. Not only because of the sensitivity but because of the very low image noise levels. Much better, for example, than with my DSR-300.

It is unfortunate that you were not allowed to optimize the performance of each camera through manual settings. As it is, you really don't know how good the cameras really are at their limits.

It is also likely that by not resetting the white balance on the camcorders whenever you changed light levels, you probably contributed to the color cast in the lighter colors.

Congratulations for taking the time and expending the effort to test these two cameras.

BTW, it is hopeless to consider and compare CCD size and pixel count without knowing how much area of each CCD is used for 'real' video imaging. There really is no clear indication that the 1/3" CCDs are physically 1/3" or that their active area is 1/3". Without a value for individual pixel area and understanding the camera's DSP (image processing) technology, one can only test sensitivity to compare

----------------

However, given low quality of TV and my untrained eye at first glance the 12 and 18 db boost of GL2 was not an obvious problem to the casual observer. Again, this happened in full auto mode for both cameras. One other "adjustment" made was ND filters were switched in as prompted by camcorders in outside shooting. -->>>

Please have a look at these pictures taken in Alaska.
I was surprised at how good they printed for a video camera.
I have seen pictures taken with the GL2, but frankly I prefer these. What do you think?
The only reason I would like to have a GL2 is for the 20X zoom.
Thanks,
Michael

I don't mean to be rude, but what pictures am I looking at?

Jeff

Sorry, I forgot to put the link.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=255941
Mike

Very nice pictures---did you do any manipulation in Photo Shop or some other image software???

Very nice pictures. Time for me to buy a memory stick and take that trip to Alaska. ( I 've never used the still feature of the camera)

Nice work Mike. Those are images to be proud of.

Jeff

Hi David,
The only thing I did was put some of them through auto retouch in film factory, (mostly for the exposure) but most of them are about the same straight out of the camera. I find it usually does a good enough job for slide shows.
Mike