"Sony Surround Handycam DCR-HC1000 " successor to the TRV950? at DVinfo.net

Masahiro Kikuchi · May 10th, 2004, 06:58 AM

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/DCR-HC1000/index.html

Steve Roffler · May 10th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Looks interesting. I don't see anytjing about 16:9 so more like the 950.

1/4.7 inch chips

3 CCDs 1.07 million pixels, 690,000 for video

12x optical zoom

min lux 11

Besides super nightshot, looks like it has something called nightshot plus to allow color in this mode.

2.5 inch monitor

Don't read Japanese so excuse any errors

John C. Chu · May 10th, 2004, 09:57 AM

The 5.1 surround features seems interesting..

But where is the 5+1 tracks of audio information recorded?

How is it extracted to be used in your editing program?

Paul Tauger · May 10th, 2004, 10:28 AM

Yeah, but . . .

The CCDs are still too small to provide good low-light response. Why do camcorder manufacturers think that the world is waiting for yet one more camera that can only take good video outdoors during the day?

Steve Roffler · May 11th, 2004, 07:56 AM

Here's an English summary of the camera.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...0-05_10_04.htm

Chris Hurd · May 11th, 2004, 09:01 AM

Some product shots:

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...000/parts.html

Mikhail Transact · May 11th, 2004, 01:20 PM

No word about 16:9 :-(

Chris Hurd · May 11th, 2004, 01:35 PM

Actually yes there is, on the specs page at http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...1000/spec.html, it does say "High picture quality wide TV mode," I would take that to mean native 16:9 like the TRV950 had. That part is actually a link, and when you click on it and run it through BabelFish it says: "It corresponds to the playback with the large picture wide television, from angle of view to wide, it is possible to photograph in higher picture quality. When photographing, by the fact that the CCD territory which has been used for the one for hand blurring revision is utilized, from wide actualizing photographing with the angle of view. Furthermore it raises also the number of pixels by photographing in the big territory in comparison with system until recently, in comparison with former wide TV mode, it is possible improvement of picture quality to assure." So yeah, native 16:9.

Young Lee · May 11th, 2004, 03:52 PM

I thought the TRV950, unlike the PDX10, didn't support native 16:9.

Boyd Ostroff · May 11th, 2004, 10:21 PM

Young, read some older posts in this group, it has been discussed before. While the 950 does not use as many pixels as the PDX-10, it still has enough to provide the full 480 scan lines, unlike the PD-150 and 170.

Mikhail Transact · May 13th, 2004, 08:24 AM

We have made a lot of test with TRV940E (it's a PAL cam) - it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen.
http://www.videomax.ru/tests/index6.html

Only anamorphic lens can help this.
http://www.videomax.ru/tests/soligor/

Canon MVX3i (Optura Xi), Sony PC330 (partly) has more best 16:9 mode. PDX10 - an excellent.

All tests are in Russian, but you can use Babel Fish.

Ignacio Rodriguez · May 13th, 2004, 09:46 AM

> it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen

Yes. Two interesting things here,

(1) The resolution of the TRV950's and the way it handles widescreen is barely enough for NTSC but not enough for PAL (higher vertical resolution in the latter). If you wree doing this test in NTSC the 950 wouldn't fare as bad.

(2) You can also see in all three cameras a difference in vertical and horizontal resolution, even in 4X3 mode. This is due to the vertical low pass filter. The only MiniDV camera which I know of that can turn of the VLPF is the Pana DXV100A.

Can the XM2 do frame mode and 16:9 at the same time? That should yield a much higher vertical resolution still!

John Jay · May 13th, 2004, 02:27 PM

Hello Mikhail

why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ?

the 1956 charts in 16:9 should be vertically cropped and not show the full circles and should also be set to the full width of the frame

also when testing you should gently tilt the camera to avoid pixel misalignment

Mikhail Transact · May 15th, 2004, 08:43 AM

I see - stupid translate machine can't do its job carefully.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Hello Mikhail
why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ? -->>>

It's my "know how" - EIA1956 with 16:9 dimension. Original postscript 4:3 image file have been rendered to high-resolution bitmap as 4:3 picture (standard aspect ratio), and as 16:9 picture (widescreen). It makes possible direct resolution comparison between 4:3 and 16:9 snapshots.

John Jay · May 15th, 2004, 12:39 PM

I understand what you have done, but in changing the aspect ratio of the 1956 chart you have also changed the gradient of the converging lines so the 300 value should now read 400 for example

Further it is difficult to believe that a PAL 940 has less than 400 vertical lines in 4:3 as your chart shows - this is why an expensive 80$ photographic film transparency is recommended for controlled testing and the camera must be perfectly jigged to avoid pixel misalignment

May 10th, 2004, 06:58 AM	#1
Masahiro Kikuchi New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 14	"Sony Surround Handycam DCR-HC1000 " successor to the TRV950? http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/DCR-HC1000/index.html

May 10th, 2004, 07:17 AM	#2
Steve Roffler Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 100	Looks interesting. I don't see anytjing about 16:9 so more like the 950. 1/4.7 inch chips 3 CCDs 1.07 million pixels, 690,000 for video 12x optical zoom min lux 11 Besides super nightshot, looks like it has something called nightshot plus to allow color in this mode. 2.5 inch monitor Don't read Japanese so excuse any errors __________________ Steve pdx10, EOS10D

May 11th, 2004, 07:56 AM	#5
Steve Roffler Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Taipei, Taiwan Posts: 100	Here's an English summary of the camera. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...0-05_10_04.htm __________________ Steve pdx10, EOS10D

May 11th, 2004, 09:01 AM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Some product shots: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...000/parts.html __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 11th, 2004, 01:20 PM	#7
Mikhail Transact Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 60	No word about 16:9 :-( __________________ Mikhail

May 10th, 2004, 09:57 AM	#3
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	The 5.1 surround features seems interesting.. But where is the 5+1 tracks of audio information recorded? How is it extracted to be used in your editing program?

May 10th, 2004, 10:28 AM	#4
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 954	Yeah, but . . . The CCDs are still too small to provide good low-light response. Why do camcorder manufacturers think that the world is waiting for yet one more camera that can only take good video outdoors during the day?

May 11th, 2004, 01:35 PM	#8
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Actually yes there is, on the specs page at http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...1000/spec.html, it does say "High picture quality wide TV mode," I would take that to mean native 16:9 like the TRV950 had. That part is actually a link, and when you click on it and run it through BabelFish it says: "It corresponds to the playback with the large picture wide television, from angle of view to wide, it is possible to photograph in higher picture quality. When photographing, by the fact that the CCD territory which has been used for the one for hand blurring revision is utilized, from wide actualizing photographing with the angle of view. Furthermore it raises also the number of pixels by photographing in the big territory in comparison with system until recently, in comparison with former wide TV mode, it is possible improvement of picture quality to assure." So yeah, native 16:9. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 11th, 2004, 03:52 PM	#9
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	I thought the TRV950, unlike the PDX10, didn't support native 16:9.

May 11th, 2004, 10:21 PM	#10
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Young, read some older posts in this group, it has been discussed before. While the 950 does not use as many pixels as the PDX-10, it still has enough to provide the full 480 scan lines, unlike the PD-150 and 170.

May 13th, 2004, 08:24 AM	#11
Mikhail Transact Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 60	We have made a lot of test with TRV940E (it's a PAL cam) - it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen. http://www.videomax.ru/tests/index6.html Only anamorphic lens can help this. http://www.videomax.ru/tests/soligor/ Canon MVX3i (Optura Xi), Sony PC330 (partly) has more best 16:9 mode. PDX10 - an excellent. All tests are in Russian, but you can use Babel Fish. __________________ Mikhail

May 13th, 2004, 09:46 AM	#12
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> it has standart poor resolution loss in widescreen Yes. Two interesting things here, (1) The resolution of the TRV950's and the way it handles widescreen is barely enough for NTSC but not enough for PAL (higher vertical resolution in the latter). If you wree doing this test in NTSC the 950 wouldn't fare as bad. (2) You can also see in all three cameras a difference in vertical and horizontal resolution, even in 4X3 mode. This is due to the vertical low pass filter. The only MiniDV camera which I know of that can turn of the VLPF is the Pana DXV100A. Can the XM2 do frame mode and 16:9 at the same time? That should yield a much higher vertical resolution still! __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

May 13th, 2004, 02:27 PM	#13
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Hello Mikhail why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ? the 1956 charts in 16:9 should be vertically cropped and not show the full circles and should also be set to the full width of the frame also when testing you should gently tilt the camera to avoid pixel misalignment __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

May 15th, 2004, 08:43 AM	#14
Mikhail Transact Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 60	I see - stupid translate machine can't do its job carefully. <<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : Hello Mikhail why do the 16:9 tests look like 4:3 ? -->>> It's my "know how" - EIA1956 with 16:9 dimension. Original postscript 4:3 image file have been rendered to high-resolution bitmap as 4:3 picture (standard aspect ratio), and as 16:9 picture (widescreen). It makes possible direct resolution comparison between 4:3 and 16:9 snapshots. __________________ Mikhail

May 15th, 2004, 12:39 PM	#15
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	I understand what you have done, but in changing the aspect ratio of the 1956 chart you have also changed the gradient of the converging lines so the 300 value should now read 400 for example Further it is difficult to believe that a PAL 940 has less than 400 vertical lines in 4:3 as your chart shows - this is why an expensive 80$ photographic film transparency is recommended for controlled testing and the camera must be perfectly jigged to avoid pixel misalignment __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*