Sony Trv950? - GoFuckYourself.com

Jake · 11-10-2002, 09:39 AM

My fiance and I are putting together our own amateur site and were looking into camera equipment. We'd like to find a camera that we can shoot in video mode to have video for the site but still be able to get still captures from the video to create galleries for the site as well. So the question is: will the TRV950 (3CCD) give us 640X480 still captures from the video that will work for galleries without looking like shit? Any input here would be great!

Jake · 11-10-2002, 09:41 AM

Oh yeah - weve tried getting still captures from our TRV30 and their just not good enough quality. Great camera for video but not stills.

AaronM · 11-10-2002, 09:56 AM

I can not help you with the specific camera that you are asking about but I can provide you with screen caps from another Sony 3 chip camera. These are from a VX2000. If you are not happy with the quaility of these then you will not be happy with the TRV950.

Sorry about the size but I figured you would want to see them at the original resolution. Hope this helps.

Jake · 11-10-2002, 10:01 AM

Aaron - Those are great screen captures. What specs should I be looking at to see if the TRV950 will give me catupures that look as good as those from your VX 2000? Thanks, Charlie

AaronM · 11-10-2002, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie6763
Aaron - Those are great screen captures. What specs should I be looking at to see if the TRV950 will give me catupures that look as good as those from your VX 2000? Thanks, Charlie

Try a side by side comparison of the two cameras specifications and see how close they match. Hit me up on ICQ if you want to talk about it a little more. I have a little time before I have to start shooting today...

130823758

KRL · 11-10-2002, 10:29 AM

That 950 has gotten excellent reviews. Sony's pro video equipment is top notch and I'd expect the 950's caps to be on par with the 2000's from what I've researched.

Jake · 11-10-2002, 10:49 AM

Cool thanks KRL - Still trying to decide between the 950 and the 2000. As Aaron pointed out it's not much more for the 2000 anyway

BV · 11-10-2002, 11:12 AM

The vx2000 has a progressive scan ccd and the trv950 does not.
Video shot in progressive mode will yeild higher quality still caps as each frame is a seperate picture rather than interlaced from one to the next providing the video was shot in progressive mode, wich on the vx2000 I believe is only 15fps, wich in comparison to the canons's 3 chip cameras wich will shoot progressive (frame movie mode) at 30fps. It looks like aarons video caps were taken from video shot in non progressive. If he had shot the video in progressive mode you would see even better quality from the still caps. The problem with the vx2000 is it only shoots 15fps when in progressive video mode thus the video has a cinematic film effect.

I wish the vx2000 would shoot 30fps in progressive mode, or maybe I am wrong as Sony does not clearly state on line how many frames per second the vx2000 will shoot in progressive mode.

But I can assure you the vx2000 caps will be better than trv950's by a long shot. I have taken many many still caps from a trv900 wich is very similar to the 950, and they are decent caps for interlaced video but no where near the quality what the vx2000 will produce you or any other video camera that has a progressive scan ccd.

Hope this helps.

P.S.: Good lighting will make your video caps look much better as it will eliminate much of the graininess that you will see from caps taken from video shot in low light, so get a good video light with your new rig as well. :-)

Cheers,
BV

AaronM · 11-10-2002, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
The vx2000 has a progressive scan ccd and the trv950 does not.
Video shot in progressive mode will yeild higher quality still caps as each frame is a seperate picture rather than interlaced from one to the next providing the video was shot in progressive mode, wich on the vx2000 I believe is only 15fps, wich in comparison to the canons's 3 chip cameras wich will shoot progressive (frame movie mode) at 30fps. It looks like aarons video caps were taken from video shot in non progressive. If he had shot the video in progressive mode you would see even better quality from the still caps. The problem with the vx2000 is it only shoots 15fps when in progressive video mode thus the video has a cinematic film effect.

I wish the vx2000 would shoot 30fps in progressive mode, or maybe I am wrong as Sony does not clearly state on line how many frames per second the vx2000 will shoot in progressive mode.

But I can assure you the vx2000 caps will be better than trv950's by a long shot. I have taken many many still caps from a trv900 wich is very similar to the 950, and they are decent caps for interlaced video but no where near the quality what the vx2000 will produce you or any other video camera that has a progressive scan ccd.

Hope this helps.

P.S.: Good lighting will make your video caps look much better as it will eliminate much of the graininess that you will see from caps taken from video shot in low light, so get a good video light with your new rig as well. :-)

Cheers,
BV

100% correct. I do not shootin progressive mode and it is 15fps on the VX2000. As for lighting...I told him the same thing on ICQ.

HeadPimp · 11-10-2002, 12:12 PM

Dammit Aaron, youo had to post pics from that VX2000 didn't you... Now I am back to wanting one.... DAMMIT!

Jake · 11-10-2002, 12:34 PM

Thanks BV, great info! Now you've got me wondering if Canon may have a better product than the Sony. It looks like I definitely need to go with a camera that has progressive scan so that I can get the cleaner captures but now I'm wondering if Cannon's competition to the VX2000 would be a better buy? Anyone have any comments on the best bet here?

Morgan · 11-10-2002, 12:37 PM

I just picked up the DCR-PC120 and I love it! Its great for the POV videos we're shooting!!!! Soooo tiny, yet soooo buff!

AaronM · 11-10-2002, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by charlie6763
Thanks BV, great info! Now you've got me wondering if Canon may have a better product than the Sony. It looks like I definitely need to go with a camera that has progressive scan so that I can get the cleaner captures but now I'm wondering if Cannon's competition to the VX2000 would be a better buy? Anyone have any comments on the best bet here?

Overall the Canon can not compete with the VX2000. If you step up to te XL1s then you are talking apples and apples.

11-10-2002, 09:39 AM	#1
Jake Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CO, US Posts: 3,056	Sony Trv950? My fiance and I are putting together our own amateur site and were looking into camera equipment. We'd like to find a camera that we can shoot in video mode to have video for the site but still be able to get still captures from the video to create galleries for the site as well. So the question is: will the TRV950 (3CCD) give us 640X480 still captures from the video that will work for galleries without looking like shit? Any input here would be great! __________________

11-10-2002, 09:41 AM	#2
Jake Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CO, US Posts: 3,056	Oh yeah - weve tried getting still captures from our TRV30 and their just not good enough quality. Great camera for video but not stills. __________________

11-10-2002, 09:56 AM	#3
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	I can not help you with the specific camera that you are asking about but I can provide you with screen caps from another Sony 3 chip camera. These are from a VX2000. If you are not happy with the quaility of these then you will not be happy with the TRV950. Sorry about the size but I figured you would want to see them at the original resolution. Hope this helps. Last edited by AaronM; 11-10-2002 at 09:57 AM..

11-10-2002, 10:01 AM	#4
Jake Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CO, US Posts: 3,056	Aaron - Those are great screen captures. What specs should I be looking at to see if the TRV950 will give me catupures that look as good as those from your VX 2000? Thanks, Charlie __________________

11-10-2002, 10:49 AM	#7
Jake Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CO, US Posts: 3,056	Cool thanks KRL - Still trying to decide between the 950 and the 2000. As Aaron pointed out it's not much more for the 2000 anyway __________________

11-10-2002, 10:29 AM	#6
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	That 950 has gotten excellent reviews. Sony's pro video equipment is top notch and I'd expect the 950's caps to be on par with the 2000's from what I've researched.

11-10-2002, 11:12 AM	#8
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	The vx2000 has a progressive scan ccd and the trv950 does not. Video shot in progressive mode will yeild higher quality still caps as each frame is a seperate picture rather than interlaced from one to the next providing the video was shot in progressive mode, wich on the vx2000 I believe is only 15fps, wich in comparison to the canons's 3 chip cameras wich will shoot progressive (frame movie mode) at 30fps. It looks like aarons video caps were taken from video shot in non progressive. If he had shot the video in progressive mode you would see even better quality from the still caps. The problem with the vx2000 is it only shoots 15fps when in progressive video mode thus the video has a cinematic film effect. I wish the vx2000 would shoot 30fps in progressive mode, or maybe I am wrong as Sony does not clearly state on line how many frames per second the vx2000 will shoot in progressive mode. But I can assure you the vx2000 caps will be better than trv950's by a long shot. I have taken many many still caps from a trv900 wich is very similar to the 950, and they are decent caps for interlaced video but no where near the quality what the vx2000 will produce you or any other video camera that has a progressive scan ccd. Hope this helps. P.S.: Good lighting will make your video caps look much better as it will eliminate much of the graininess that you will see from caps taken from video shot in low light, so get a good video light with your new rig as well. :-) Cheers, BV

11-10-2002, 12:12 PM	#10
HeadPimp Bad Mo-Fo Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,772	Dammit Aaron, youo had to post pics from that VX2000 didn't you... Now I am back to wanting one.... DAMMIT!

11-10-2002, 12:34 PM	#11
Jake Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: CO, US Posts: 3,056	Thanks BV, great info! Now you've got me wondering if Canon may have a better product than the Sony. It looks like I definitely need to go with a camera that has progressive scan so that I can get the cleaner captures but now I'm wondering if Cannon's competition to the VX2000 would be a better buy? Anyone have any comments on the best bet here? __________________

11-10-2002, 12:37 PM	#12
Morgan Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Corona Del Mar, CA Posts: 10,520	I just picked up the DCR-PC120 and I love it! Its great for the POV videos we're shooting!!!! Soooo tiny, yet soooo buff! __________________ PornstarPlatinum.com \| TransErotica.com