VX2000 -- various topics

[Mike Rehmus]

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.

[Alan Christensen]

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???

[Bryan Beasleigh]

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.

[Mike Rehmus]

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.

[Chung Lee]

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.

[Matt Stahley]

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!

[Chung Lee]

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.

[Mike Rehmus]

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.

[Matt Stahley]

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

[Zac Stein]

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

[Mike Rehmus]

I deleted this particular comments as it was dumb.

[Julianne Kilburn, CLVS]

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!

[Dennis Hull]

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.

[David Hurdon]

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

[Adrian Douglas]

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.