TRV950 -- various questions

[Patrick Nee]

Thank you all for the excellent response to this thread.

The link provided by Jeremy is an interesting one but I am not sure if this technique will work although it certainly demands a little more investigation.
I even read in a French forum that the true 16:9 capability of the PDX10 was a hardware issue and not firmware. I have not come across any reliable information that says the 16:9 in the PDX is hardware enabled or vice versa, so I guess I am still in the dark. As it stands, I think I am investing too much time chasing this Holy Grail and should concentrate more on improving my film making skills in good ol fashion 4:3. Hell, I don’t even have a wide screen TV!.

Thanks to you all again.

P.S Jeremy, dont know if I understand you right but you certainly can read the memory stick over USB and access mem stick in windows.

[Tom Hardwick]

Yes Bob, the Sony 510 Digital 8 does seems to have true 16:9. because in 16:9 mode the view is much wider, it's using the full with of the mega-pixel chip. On the Canon Optura PI the image is taller but that's simply because the viewfinder is not adding the black bars to undistort the image. How lazy of Canon. If you replay this Canon 16:9 footage on a 16:9 TV all will look ok, but on a 4:3 TV the image is horizontally compressed.

The 950 has bars across top & bottom of the V/F, but this is a compositional aid, and is done to show you the correct aspect ratio while shooting. Again - on a 4:3 TV the image will be horizontally compressed - and on a 16:9 TV will be stretched sideways to look correct.

The PDX10 in the 16:9 mode is like having a TRV950 with a 0.8x wide-angle permanently in place (in the horizontal only). The camera cries out for this, and the 950's wide-angle certainly should be called something else. It's not wide-angle in the slightest.

tom.

[John Jay]

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : The link you posted shows what I've found Boyd - that the PDX10 doesn't use the full 4:3 vertical resolution when put into the 16:9 mode. Why Sony have 'degraded' the resolution potential of the 16:9 image I can't imagine.

Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.

tom. -->>>


what Tom is saying is essentially correct,

put another way and comparing the 16:9 from an x10 and a 950 from the same country, you will find that the x10 has 20% more pixels in the horizontal AND 20% more pixels in the vertical

thus the 16:9 vertical resolution of the x10 is 20% more than the 950

However if you compare the 16:9 of a NTSC x10 with the 16:9 of a PAL 950 you will find they have the SAME vertical resolution, this is because PAL has 20% more vertical resolution over NTSC (576/480 = 1.2). The vertical resolutions are the same but the NTSC x10 uses 20% more pixels to achieve it than the PAL 950

So Patrick, how do you like those apples?

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

This would explain why, when both are available from the same store, PAL models cost more than NTSC models, even in PAL countries!

Take a look at this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=109457#post109457

Now if only PAL were 24 instead of 25 fps ;-)

[Patrick Nee]

Whats with the apples?

I am aware of how the PDX acheives 16:9. What I want in my 950 is the wider 16:9; full horizontal scanning of the whole 1/4" CCD with a little vertical res sacrificed to bring ratios into correct proportions. How the pdx does this and whether its technically possible to get the 950 to do it is what I am curious about. I have an unfounded huntch that It all lies in different firmware configs as discussed earlier in this post. Perhaps one day i will find an answer but hopefully by then my 950 will be retired, replaced by a DVX100 :)

[Tim Frank]

I ordered this camera the other day, the TRV950, and I was wondering if it would be a worthy investment for Sony's "Zoom Mic" that plugs into the hot shoe or another shotgun type mic. I will be doing a lot of "guerilla" shooting which I basically mean just unscripted fun stuff. Is it a worthy investment or does the onboard mic work just fine for this. I've had Sony's in the past and always found the mics better than say Canon's onboard but was wondering as I moved up to a prosumer camera should I move up a level in audio also. Our school has handheld mics, and wireless mics (forgive the lingo, i'm tired) so I probably won't be investing in one of those until...school's out! Thanks for any input!

[Barry Green]

There has been much discussion about this over the last year or so. I tested the 950 and found that it does not, in fact, increase its field of view.

However, all may not be lost: check out the resolution charts here:
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/0208_3CCD.html

Scroll to the bottom and look at the resolution charts that were shot in 16:9. The TRV950 shot there is dramatically higher resolution than the VX2000 and the Canon DM-XV2. In fact the TRV950 shot is on par with the MX5000, the camera that invented the 16:9-patch-on-4:3-megapixel-CCD-for-full-resolution technique. So whether the TRV950 matches the PDX10 or not, it appears to have an excellent, excellent 16:9 mode of its own.

[Tor Salomonsen]

TRV950 - being a Sony - has very good onboard mic. So good that it picks up the sound of your breath when you look in the viewfinder, your fingers when you try to find the zoom, the zoom motor etc.

If your sound source is good and loud you will not have a problem. But you should have an extra mic handy.

I use a Sennheiser MKE300 on top of mine. The Sony (I think) will take power from the hot shoe, so you don't have to worry about mic batteries. I have read some expert say that it's a good mic but the "zoom" thing is more of a marketing feature - meaning it will hardly make a difference.

If you are recording ambient sound or sound from several sources, remember that the character of your sound will change as you turn your camera and with it the directional mic. The onboard will actually work better in a case like that. Or you could record ambience with a separate system (A stereo mic and a minidisc recorder would do in most cases). Afterwards you can mix that sound with what the directional mic has recorded.

[Shawn Mielke]

Tor,
Do you pick up any motor noise with the mke300? I'm wondering because many posts on this mic in the past mention something to this effect.

Tim, I would forget about zoom mics and concentrate on the better of the consumer cam mics, although I don't know what all those are. The mke300 might be fine for you ($170).

[Tor Salomonsen]

No motor sound (or rather: so little that I don't consider it).
The complaints I've seen about mke300 is that on some cameras it seems to interfere with the "phantom feed" thus creating some noise. That's why Sennheiser issued a mke300d specially designed to be used with DV cameras. I use the plain mke300 and do not have such problems on the TRV950.

[Patrick Nee]

Although I do not have a shotgun currently on my 950, I have been looking into the matter and have a good idea what I am going to go for.
First, you have to consider budget. If you have at least £400/$500 then get a beacktek box for XLR and use the Sennheiser modular K6 system with ME66 shotgun.
Sennheiser also have the MKE300D. It must be a "D" however, as these have shielding to prevent interference with digital cams. This is apparently a very good prosumer shotgun mic with 3.5 mini jack and retails in the UK for £160.
I have also heard many people rave about Azden shotguns (Exact model escapes me, something like XMR1?). These sound great and come in XLR or 3.5 mini jack and represent serious value for money as I have read from many sources that the sound they deliver is unrivalled at the price.
The last Mic I was looking at is an Audio Technica AT55. It’s a mono shotgun with mini jack but it is cheap and will probably be better than the Sony.
Speaking of the Sony, I have read that it is poor. It is hot shoe and works with the cameras zoom. At tele the mic takes over but at wide settings I have heard it mixes 80% cam mic with 20% external with the results being mixed up and confused.
At the end of the day, go for the K6/ME66 if you can, many professional organisations such as the BBC use it with their DV cams.

[Tom Hardwick]

If you're thinking about the Sony HS-1 little 'intelligent' hotshoe mic, please go here (quarter way down the page) and read my review on it.
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mic.html

tom.

[Tommy Haupfear]

hopefully by then my 950 will be retired, replaced by a DVX100

I guess you would get a 16:9 adapter for the DVX100? :)

[Shawn Mielke]

I'm asking on behalf of someone else.

Are there any 950 shooters using this microphone? It seems a bit long for the cam. I did a search here and could find only vx2000 shooters working with it, and one instance of someone who was GOING to get this mic for his/her 950, without a follow up.

If so, does it pick up much handling noise when mounted straight to the cam?
It looks like it would. If so, can that "integrated" shock mount be removed (and replaced with a proper universal)?

Any other like priced shotgun recommendations are welcome.

Thanks,
Regards,
Shawn

[Shawn Mielke]

Oh, and please specify whether or not you use an XLR adaptor box. I'm thinking that this person could go without one, and simply adapt it to a mini jack via cable, at least for now. He/she is on a small budget.