Clif posted the following note to rec.video.production on 6 Oct 1998, which is reproduced here with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I used my TRV900 for about 5 hours this weekend. I shot at an outdoor Italian festival and at an indoor stage play. The outdoor stuff looked fine, except when I neglected to adjust for backlighting. In the indoor shoot, I operated my XL1 outside the control room, while another cameraman operated the TRV900 in the control room. The S-video outs of the XL1 and the TRV900 were input to a Panasonic mixer in a 3-monitor arrangement. The guys in the control room were able to adjust the white balance of the TRV900 to obtain a good color match with the XL1. The stage was dark between scenes. The curtain remained open so my eyes could see dim figures moving props around. These were not visible in the XL1, but were sometimes visible in the TRV900. On the other hand, the XL1 showed the dark stage as a dark gray with little white noise; the TRV900 had so much gain-up noise that the overall image of the dark stage was a medium gray. Probably, if the XL1 had the gain cranked up, it could have matched the TRV900's sensitivity. Nonetheless, the low-light sensitivity of the TRV900 was acceptable. In reviewing the TRV900 tape from the stage play, I noted an unacceptable constant audio whine. I have not determined whether the source of the noise was the camera itself or something else in the control room. I have not noticed any such noise from footage taken in other situations. Some other notes on the TRV900. 1. As I reported earlier, there is no progressive scan in wide mode. 2. The TRV900 does not provide a letterbox output to a normal TV of video shot in wide mode. No camcorder that I know of does, but I was hoping. 3. It is not practical to use a polarizing filter with the lens hood that comes with the TRV900. I bought a rubber hood. 4. I bought a miniplug to stereo RCA adapter so that I can use my own audio cables and S-video cable to hook up to a monitor. In this way, I am not limited to the length of Sony's AV cable that comes with the TRV900. The adapter can plug into either the AV jack or the earphone jack. I found the earphone jack to work a little better. 5. VX1000 batteries work with the TRV900. Therefore the optional double-battery charger for the VX1000 is a good accessory for the TRV900, especially, since the TRV900 does not come with a battery charger for charging batteries off camera. (The AC adapter that comes with the TRV900 only charges a battery when it is on the camera and the camera is off.) 6. The TRV900 advertises that it can be used with a 12-hour battery. This can only be achieved when the LCD monitor is off, leaving the viewfinder for viewing. The catch is that when the big VX1000 batteries and larger batteries are used, they touch the face when the eye is against the viewfinder. There is more clearance when the smaller battery that comes with the TRV900 is used. [Ed. note: by pressing a button on the side, the viewfinder can be extended to avoid this problem.] 7. The TRV900 makes it easy to transfer stills to a computer using a PC-card or a floppy. Be forewared that these are JPEG compressed. That is compressed at least 6:1 over the 5:1 compression of the DV stills. This is fine if your goal is to print the stills or to publish them on the web. However, if you plan to edit in photoship, etc., it is better to start with the uncompressed DV still which must be captured over firewire. Clif ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a follow-up question and answer: >Assuming the same luma level from the subject, how does the noise level >compare? ---------------------- : From clifand@aol.com Wed Oct 7 12:40:39 1998 I wrote the note primarily with your question in mind. I am sorry I do not know how to quantify the difference. Even with my relatively untrained eye, the difference in gain-up noise is very noticeable. In fact, the gain-up noise would be the primary way I would be able to distinguish shots from the two cameras. However, I do have a question concerning the XL1's excellent performance in this area. This performance is normally attributed to the large CCD elements (low count 1/3"). However, it may also be that the signal is processed to filter the noise in certain situations. In other situations, the gain-up noise might be more comparable. For example, it may be that the XL1 is noisier when the predominant color is not a dark gray or black. -------------------