Sony TRV22 - a great little DV CAM (IMO)

[vhelp]

Hi all,

I came accross this forum by accident, and it was empty. I'll start it off
w/ a good TRV22 CAM article :P

Yes, I have the TRV22. It's a great little cam, and has many great features.
(yea, it has pass-through)

It has a tough-type LCD screen (TTS) vs. those cams that come w/ buttons and
things that you have to press. I learned quickly, that this TTS is actually a
beneficial feature. Because there is less chance of unwanted cam move
ments (when cam is mounted on a tripod) However, it can be clumsy at
times, but you learn to work around those clumseez. Lots more features of
this cam Also comes w/ a remote control (zooming for instance)

I don't use the pass-through feature of this unit because I have the ADVC-100
for this. I mostly use it for transfering my footage from miniDV tapes.

I use mine mostly for taking footage of events (parties, lunches and dinners)
and other things such as test shoots (for when I"m on a hunt w/ an idea)

I am currently in the making of a tripod (home brew gizmo) but that is still
on the drawing board - hmmm....

TIP...

Stick to one brand of miniDV tapes. Other tapes are coated differently by
their respetive manufactures, and as such, may be biased as to using their
own coats (oils) I learned the hard way, that just popping in any brand of
tapes (which I did zillions of times) coated my cams' heads badly, and caused
my miniDV tapes to not play right. Warning... this has an distructive use
too.. this process of switching from one brand of tapes to the next can pass
those different coats (oils) to other tapes themselve and cause those tapes
to become useless or damage the presous footage on it !!
FWIW, I use Fuji - a 6 pk kit that BJ's sells for $27 (went down in price) And,
I've ben using them for the last year (though I bought many other single or
double brand tapes (for when I was out or needed right away) It's important
to keep an extra spare tape around or in your bag.

Also, I use a cool lens cleaner SIMA LensPEN. Though it smells like
shoe polish. This gizmo really cleans the lens w/out a speckle. You use it
in circular motions.

Lights. . .

Lighting is so very important. Regular lamps just don't do it, unless you
scenery as enough brightness (ie, white) to it, and 100watt bults etc. Those
60watt bulbs aren't enough. The more light you have, the better quality
your encodes will be. Lower lights, cause lots of image noise - - a CCD
thing.


Tripods. . .

I have several. I've learned that a tripod can make for much better footage
quality. ie, bitrate, and quality etc. I learned that limiting or depending
on your cams' built-in stabilizer is not enough. I also learned that there
is also an art to using a tripod. ie, pannig left/right and up/down. These
require a learning curve to give smoothest results in footage (hence, quality)
As I've said, I'm currently working on a home-made tripod project. I can't
wait to finish it. I'll post a pic of it, if it ever becomes finished (or
worth looking at :P )
Holding a cam and w/out any zooming has a better chance of a quality encode.
But once you go zooming, while panning, you're in for trouble. The further
(or faster) you pan, the harder or wider your temperal will be between fields.
That's why its so important to use a tripod in ALL your footage taking.
Learn how to manage your tripod shots.. and learn how to fluid'ly move and
pan your shoots, and you'll be amazed at your final encode product!!
Try and elimenate the hand shooting. I'm thinking about looking into a
single-pole tripod for the mean time, as this looks easier to carry around
and take steady'er shoots w/ it. My only concern is the wobbling left/right
or forward/backwards motions while shooting. I'll think and study some more.

Couple the above w/ the Lights. . . and you have better results.


Other encoding and conversions. . .

In addition to encoding w/ the tipicle formats, ie, 29.970 fps, 720 x 480
and other such items, I've also ben successful at converting the standard
29.970 fps to 25 fps (Interlaced) and results are very good.. less bitrate.
DVD2AVI will report 25 fps PAL w/ Interlace (I can successfully do a great
looking 29.970 fps Progressive encode) However, I need to find out how
to convert 29.970 to 25.000 but w/out the Interlace that SelectEvery(4,1,2)
seems to carry in it's process. Once I figure out how to get the 25 fps
w/out this bug in SelectEver() I'll have an even better (lower) bitrate
encode.


Other notes. . .

Also all my projects are processed as 16:9 for best quality. No fullscreen
crap nonsense. I don't even shoot footage in 16:9, because I have learned
that there seems to be a bug in my cams's (others as well, ie, Canon ZR-10)
that produces color artifacts and other analimies in this 16:9 mode -- 1.77:1
So, what I do is I shoot footage in 4:3 mode (fullscreen) and later on,
during the editing and encoding process, I cut the top 60 and buttom 60
pixels off, and resize to 720 x 480 and in TMPG I encode to 16:9 and that
fills the true widescreen tv set (top/bottom/left/right) completely.
I also do 2.35:1 for maximum quality output. The results are stunning, though
not Cinema quality. Remember, these cams' are Fields not Frames. They take
720 x 240 and combine them into 720 x 480 through the method of Interlacing
the two fields together, making one frame. That's why they are not as sharp
as a true Frame based cam.. though close, depending upon the lens that is
inside your cam. In mine, is the ever so popular Carl Zeiss which
produce great quality images. This accounts for the reason why this model
cam is so good under low light conditions. Stack against my Canon ZR-10
under the same conditions, and the TRV22 will outshine in quality.. less
image noise.. though there is some still. The difference w/ the ZR-10 and
the TRV22 when taking footage on human skin tones is deffinately noticable.
You have to see for yourself to judge. And, remember lighting.


DVDs and Bitrates...

Given the above, will yield your best Authoring projects..
* Author w/ 16:9 projects - - some ie, 1.77:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1
* Use CQ for (bitrate: min 900 and max 9800) and this should cover most
...fast panning (if done w/ tripod) in your DVD aurhoring.

My next cam purchase will be a Frame based one, and hopefully w/ 24p and
other Cinema style features.. but I'm not their yet.

I hope you find this article beneficial to some extent in your DV camming
endeavors

I reserve the right to make any such changes to this text

Look for some future sample clips (below) of my footage shoots soon.
* VHELP's Sample clips...

From the video workstation of,
-vhelp 2012

[racer-x]

Nice post!

Just curious though, why do you encode to wide screen 16:9? Do you have a wide screen TV? If not, then what is the benefit to 16:9 over 4:3?

Good luck on your home-made tripod, I'd like to see the end result.

[stiltman]

I was thinking about this one or the TVR19. They have the same recording quality and CCD specs.

Question, how well does it work in low light shots?
Low light = streetlights/candel light/moon shots

Currently I have a Hi8 CCD-TR600 (3 lux @ f1.8) and the low light shots are almost completely black...Medium lighting is just barely acceptable

edit; disabled smilies

[vhelp]

Hi racer-x,

Thanks for your interest and reading my post

Just curious though, why do you encode to wide screen 16:9? Do you have a wide screen TV? If not, then what is the benefit to 16:9 over 4:3?

Yeah, the reason I encode to 16:9 is definately for a future ws tv set
At the moment, I'm strapped for cash for one. But, I am also encoding to
it to view on my little 13" tv set - it DOES come out looking fine - widescreen
like it should w/ the black bars on my 13" set. And, that's the way it should
be if your goal is 16:9 you know. Anyways...

My DV cam footage encodes are mostly geared to 2.35:1 (for quality reasons)
though I shoot in 4:3 mode.

I took one of my 2.35:1 samples to BJ's as a test to view how it would look
on their ws sets. I was taken by the looks of it. However, I don't think I
got a good view on a good set. I used whatever tv was hooked up at the
time, and snuck my own CDR inside the player and pressed play
It worked very well, and I was pleased at the level of experience I had
reached thus far w/ ws encodes and things.

Yeah, the benefit is obvious. Less image area to encode for bitrate and
quality (w/in the eye of the user)

So, it's no more louzy fullscreen encodes for me, unless it's something that
is on cable/satellite and only in that format. As far as DV cam footage goes,
it's really the eye of the Director (me ) If my goal is to ws it, and I exhit
it to you all in 2.35:1 format, than THAT is the format intended. You never
see the fullscreen hence, it doesn't exist to you.

Hope that explains why the ws encodes from DV footage

Good luck on your home-made tripod, I'd like to see the end result.

gee, tanx !!

-vhelp

[vhelp]

hi stiltman,

Actually, the TRV19 ( rumor has it.. ) that it's not as good as the TRV22's
low light.

As far as what I consider as "low light". . .
Maybe I idea of it is different than yours. I wish there was a reasonable
test that I could use for you. One that would be considered close to standard
and that anyone could do, anytime a test is needed.

If such a test exhist, please let me know. I'd like to help you if I can. And,
I won't force the TRV22 on you either

Oh, right... low light..
My understanding of low light is basically, when you are inside. There are
normal 60watt bulbs and other low-wattage floreecent bulbs. These, I do
consider low light conditions.. actually, a little lower than low light

But, low light doesn't have to be night.. though, in your case, may be.
Would be nice if there were such a standard as to HOW to judge what is
actually considered "low light"

Well, let me know what you think.
-vhelp

[birdygal]

The suposedly low light issue I researched on the Sony's while deciding is what made me choose the 22 over the 19 I am not thrilled with the 22's lighting either but I will be getting a flash soon hope it helps.

[vhelp]

Actually, I got one. Only the other day I was looking for it. I lost it
But the sort tests I did perform w/ it were not so bad.

It was a Sony Cost was $39 and connects to the Cam's shoe.
I'll try and dig around for it.

-vhelp

[birdygal]

I plan on ordering one next week. I have one enviorment I have been trying to shoot in that needs some help with lighting. Specifically straight ahead of the camera.

[racer-x]

The best low light digital camcorders are the ones with the largest CCD's. They help capture more light. But even the best digital camcorders are poor quality in low light.

I read that even movie companies shoot night scenes during daylight and then darken the video to make it look like night time.

I recently orderd a Panasonic PV-953, but it is still backorderd. I've been waiting over a month now. It is a 3-CCD, 3 MP camcorder. It's a grand cheeper than the Cannon GL-2, but shoots just as good video quality with good lighting, but not as good during poor lighting. It also lets you shoot @ 25 fps. They say maybe sometime in November I should get it. Until then I'll have to chug along with this 3-year old Sharp I've been using.

Here is a detailed review of the 953:
http://www.dvspot.com/reviews/panasonic/pv_dv953-review/index.shtml

[DUKE107]

Hello all,

I picked up a sony TRV 25 off ebay brand new for 700 US. Fantastic cam even in low light, not as good as my TRV 608 Hi8 cam in low light but ten times better in every other respectthen my 608. Well im new to the cam and can't offer much more other then easy transfer of video to pc with this unit.

Duke

[Hazza]

I was thinking about this one or the TVR19. They have the same recording quality and CCD specs.

Question, how well does it work in low light shots?
Low light = streetlights/candel light/moon shots

Currently I have a Hi8 CCD-TR600 (3 lux @ f1.8) and the low light shots are almost completely black...Medium lighting is just barely acceptable

edit; disabled smilies

stiltman.

The LUX rating for the 22 is 5. From my experience with my 22 it does not perform as good as my old Hi8 Sony, but is up with the best in the miniDV ranks. The reason is due to the size of the new miniDV camcorders they have a small CCD. So don't be fooled thinking these cams do better than the old bigger size (CCD) camera's. However they are better in every other area in my opinion.

Also the TRV19 and TRV22 will perform identically due to the identical optics and CCD between the two.

Hazza.

[andy2003]

I have a TRV39 and just wanted to comment on the 16:9 issue. I shoot exclusively in 16:9 anamorphic (it might really psuedo-anamorphic) and have noticed no problems at all. I've made my first 20-minute DVD from footage and it turned out looking excellent. Shooting this way will give you higher resolution than cropping a 4:3 image. Also cropping additionally to 2.35 from 16:9 will be better than going from 4:3 to 2.35. Question, why do you use 2.35 at all? Are you going for a more cinematic look? Because you are losing some serious resolution by doing that without proper 2.35 anamorphic lenses, etc.

Can't stress the lighting issue enough though, TURN UP THE LIGHT or get a cam light or something. It's really amazing how much our eyes can deal with vs. a camera...hehe

[vhelp]

andy2003,

As far as my home brew 2.35:1 from my 4:3 DV source, have a look at a
sample I recently posted a few days ago. The link is at the top of this post
in BLUE. This is from my 4:3 footage, and I cropped
off some pixels at the top and bottom.

The built-in 16:9 mode is useless to me becuaes of the artifacts in the video
when I fireiwre it to my hd. Too many other issues w/ this 16:9 mode.
.
.
After some extensive experimenting and tweaking around some, I finally
decided on the 2.35:1 format. Thansk for FulciLives, and and to DJRumpy's
Aspect Ratio guide, I was able to come to this decision w/ my DV footage
projects.

Please remember, that when I shoot footage, that I AM the director. So, if
my vision is an end result of 2.35:1 as my final movie, THATS the scope
that I want my viewers to invision it from. When I shoot footage in 4:3, I'm
not seeing 4:3, (in my mind, that is) I'm seeing what I'm "invisioning" at the
time of shooting, and that is 2.35:1 as such. I have black tape running
accross my cams viewfinder window (until I find a better alternative) and
when I shoot, all I see is 2.35:1 and I focus and zoom inside this view.

Also, a note on a 2.35:1 mode. There is none for the TRV22. In fact, I do
not think there is a DV cam w/in the price range that includes this sort of
mode. I've never seen any. So, there is no way of faking it, even w/ the
built-in 16:9 mode of this cam. (don't forget the issues I have already w/ this
mode)
If there were such a lens attachment for (2.35:1) I would sure get it. But
there isn't. I have to resort to the next best thing. And, to be quite honest
w/ you, IMO, there is no difference w/ the method that I use
.
.
Hay, but I got this idea, along w/ your statement..

Are you going for a more cinematic look? Because you are losing some serious resolution by doing that without proper 2.35 anamorphic lenses, etc

Well, to be honest w/ ya, I don't agree w/ you on this. In any case, just in
case I have the feeling of what you're talking about, I have an idea w/ a
lens attachment that I bought a while ago. It's a Wide Angle lens that I got,
thanks to my misunderstanding of Wide Angle (WA) vs. Wide Screen format
(ie, 1.777; 1.85; or 2.35) But, I think I understand what you getting at w/
respect to resolution. I'm thinking of rigging my CAM w/ the WA lens I have
and taking footage w/ it, and THEN do my home brew of 2.35:1 method and
seeing how that looks when encoded 8)
W/ any luck, it'll look just as good, or better.. R U sensing the resolution
hint here
.
.
In any event either methods would surfice in my view as Director :P
It should not matter to you (even if you KNOW how I obtain it) ..becuase
remember, this my vision, and how it's suppose to look

Oh, yes, please have a look at my latest 2.35:1 sample clip (link at top of
this thread) - thanks.

From the desk of,
-vhelp 2055

[yg1968]

Caution: the TRV-19 does not have a passthrough feature. The TRV-22 does have a passthrough feature.

vhelp, have you tried the passthrough feature of the TRV-22? Are you happy with it? The reason that I am asking is that I remember that you were unahappy about the passthrough feature of your Canon digital camcorders. I was wondering if you were happier with the passthrough of the Sony TRV-22. Do you still experience colour bleeding?

[vhelp]

TGIF all

@ yg1968,

Actually, I have the TRV-22 :P and the pass-through works fine on my
end here. I don't use though, because I have my ADVC-100 doing (IMO)
better job at my Satellite tv projects (when I do them) over here.
.
.
The only time I use my pass-through (or direct-connect) w/ the CAM is
when I'm transfering my home footage, which seems to be lots these days

Color washout. . .
Noop. Don't have any of that old nonsense, like I did w/ my Canon ZR-10.
But, my last theory on that was, that it had either a bad DV codec chip,
(they all did)
or, it was setup that way (standard'wise) and that it's just the nature
of the cam (for the ZR-10)
I had another theory too, but I don't know if I ever shared it. ..that
it did not actually record (DV compress) the source when I recorded
any of my satellite programs onto the miniDV tapes. And, when I did
my mini TIVO (I mean) S-Video Analog captures from it, the quality was
always very good, as if it never got DV'ed But, like I said, my
ADVC-100 does the work that my mini TIVO did then, these days now.
.
.
Yes, I'm happier w/ my TRV-22's pass-through (w/ what little experience
I've had w/ it) though I had a TADD in one experience w/ it some time
ago, but not worth mentioning about here.

I've ben learning lots about my 22. I've learned a few secrets, and
maybe then some, but there's still lots to figure out (as w/ any cam)
but I'm sure there are obvious'ness of the cam, waitin to byte at me,
but in any case, I'm quite happy for the time being. I love Interlace,
I hate Interlace. I have my days w/ it.

I learned just recently that people that de-Interlace there footage
and encode it as such, consider the strobbing (if noticable, and pending
on the "level" of it, per the way they shoot (ie, shaky hands etc)) that
they consider the stobbing to be more of a "movie" feel.. for whatever
that is worth. I always thought it was a nue-sense, but perhaps I need
to relook at it from another perspective ?? ..anyways.., I'm toying w/
the idea as I learn and play some more w/ my many de-Interlace techniques
that I apply to my source.. of which you can test for yourself blue link
above, in first post.

..and see for yourself how things look, considering it's dark, lots of fast
action etc etc etc. :P
Yes, these are some of the things I do w/ my TRV-22's footage. Let me know
what you all think.

One more thing...

Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, .. .. ..
It's time we all waik up and go "..dahh, why didn't I.. .."

Well, there are LOTS more DV'ing intrikets that I've learned since, and also
concogeonattions w/ both my CAMS and other gizmos and things.

-vhelp 2057

[yg1968]

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting thread.

[stevenj]

Dear vhelp -

I am considering buying a Sony TRV22. I find your posts very informative. I downloaded your high school football sample video. I didn't have an MPEG-2 player, so I downloaded VLC Media Player. When I play the video, I think the aspect ratio is off--the players and the ref look really squat. Is this from the VLC Player, the Sony, or some of the transfers in between? Other than the aspect ratio, I thought the quality was very good for a digital video at night.

Thanks.

Steve

[racer-x]

Hey vhelp,

After watching your Football clip, I started getting some ideas. What does that look like on a TV? I assume a standard 4:3 TV will show the black bars on top and bottom, but what about a widescreen TV?

The reason I ask, is my new camera(Panasonic DV-953) will let you shoot in Cinema Mode. It looks just like what you have there. If the black bars remain, it may be an option I could use for sports. I could use the black bars for my scorebugs, lower thirds and logos. That way, they won't interfer with the action. But of course if the widescreen covers them up, it won't do me any good.

Just curious.

[vhelp]

After watching your Football clip, I started getting some ideas. What does that look like on a TV? I assume a standard 4:3 TV will show the black bars on top and bottom, but what about a widescreen TV?

Please remember the analigy.. that I'm the Director.. as such, you'll
be getting my so called, "Director's Cut" version hence, my 2.35:1 Cinema format.

Well first.. I know I've posted this elswhere's before, but here goes
again..

Widescreen TV viewing (16:9 AR)
------------------------------------------------
A-Source: (1.77:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - none - widescreen FULL
B-Source: (1.85:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - some black bars - widescreen
C-Source: (2.35:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - more black bars - widescreen
D-Source: (1.33:1) - 04:3 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - crop 60/60 top/bot (FS Wide)

Normal TV viewing (4:3 AR)
----------------------------------------
E-Source: (1.77:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - some black bars
F-Source: (1.85:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - more black bars
G-Source: (2.35:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - lots more black bars
H-Source: (1.33:1) - 04:3 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - FS (no bars)

The reason I ask, is my new camera(Panasonic DV-953) will let you shoot in Cinema Mode. It looks just like what you have there. If the black bars remain, it may be an option I could use for sports. I could use the black bars for my scorebugs, lower thirds and logos. That way, they won't interfer with the action. But of course if the widescreen covers them up, it won't do me any good. ..

Lets walk in assumption here...
* Well, (I'm assuming) your cam will be "Pure" 16:9 and by that I mean 1.77:1 AR,
...which means 60/60 cropped or (720 x 360 ratio) and to bring it to a perfective
...for firewire (FW) transfer, it's oriented to (720 x 480) (but still maintains
...the 16:9 AR)
* When you FW it to your hd, you see 720 x 480. To properly encode this for
...widescreen view, you have to (in TMPG) select Video/Aspect Ratio: [16:9 display]
...and under the Advanced tab, select Source Aspect Ratio: [16:9 525 line (NTSC)],
...and then select the Video Arrange Method: [Full screen (keep aspect ratio)]

Note, when you encode this way, your source will be widescreen w/ 16:9 AR. Then,
depending on your Viewing Medium (see above) Widescreen: (A) or Normal TV: (E) w/ bars.

I have yet to see a CAM w/ other than 1.77:1 AR features, for the home budget'est.
So, there's not point in discussing 1.85:1 or worse, 2.35:1 processes. Just assume
that ALL home-budget cams are Pure 1.77:1 16:9 AR (see above) as (A) - - so when
you FW your DV source, you'll see 720 x 480, but then you encode it (give the above
method) your source will be properly stretched w/ in the 1.77:1 AR for your given
Viewing screen, be it Widescreen (A) or Normal TV (E) !!
.
.
So, you wanna write "inside" your black bars (if I gotcha right) This you can do,
as long as you perform it ie, in vdub (or avisynth) but it's probably gonna be messy.
Maybe you can do it under Ulead or other bigger package. But, you can write inside
those black bars - taking advantage of the features. However.. warning..
.
.
If you do such, then you won't see it on a Widescreen TV set (for obvious reasons
(above)) But, you can, or might see it on a Normal TV set (I think) - - Only test
will prove for sure.
.
.
Actually, I think you can, provided that you encode to 4:3 AR (but keeping the black
bars) and then including them in the encode - - as you'll be encoding the black bars
(and w/ any writing in them) as such. This might require some resing guggling around.
Hope that made sense.

From the Video Workstation of,
-vhelp

[racer-x]

Well I was just looking through my manual and it lists 3 shooting modes. 4:3, 16:9 and a Cinema mode. It doesn't give resolution numbers for the Cinema mode(crapy manual), it puts black bars on the top and bottom. It also says that it requires a widescreen TV with a S-video connection for viewing.

You're probably right in that it would be easier to put the black bars on after the transfer to PC. It was just an interesting idea at the time.