The truth: 3x480kCCD vs. 1x1.33MP?

I would personally say spend the money and go for a 3CCD camera. The difference is rather large in my (granted limited) experience. For the price of the camera you list you can buy the Panasonic PV-GS70 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...il&Q=&sku=276565&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo
This is actually what I use and have found it to be a nice little camera for the price. You can also buy lenses for this camera which is a big plus - especially if you like or need wide angle shots.

How does 16x9 work? Does it just letterbox the picture automatically?

Click to expand...

This really depends on whether you have true 16:9 or not. Most prosumer cameras do not have true 16:9 (even the Canon XL1s I believe). You have to pay quite a bit for true 16:9 or use an anamorphic lense which costs several hundred. For cameras in the price range you are working with the best you will probably get is a letterboxed effect.

Thanks very much for that, I might just get the 3 CCD now. But I noticed it is 12lux doesn't that seem a bit high?

Regarding letterboxing that is fine, even though obviously I would like the real thing, if it looks good I wouldn't mind having it letterboxed.

Okay, let’s do the math.
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027123&page=2
JVC GR-D93US
1.33MP = 1,330,000 pixels.
1/4" ccd

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...il&Q=&sku=276565&is=REG&si=spec#goto_itemInfo
Panasonic PV-GS70
460,000 per ccd * 3 ccd = 1,380,000 pixels
1/6" ccd

http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/s.html
Canon XL1s
270,000 per ccd * 3 ccd = 810,000 pixels
1/3" ccd with pixel shift

However this can be deceiving, because on the JVC, the ccd has to absorb all 3 colors which effectively reduces the pixels per channel by 3, so you only use about 443,000 pixels per color. Additionally, on the Panasonic, you only have tiny 1/6” chips so optical imperfections will be exaggerated and you might loose some picture clarity, but you may not. There are many factors that go into choosing a camera, don’t get blinded by pixels. Personally, if I couldn’t scrape together $1500 to by a Canon or Sony on ebay, I’d go with the Panasonic.

PS. One foot candle is bout 10 lux, so 12 isn’t bad. I never shoot in low light so it doesn’t matter to me.

Right, and thanks much for that film8ker.. Well, I believe the conclusion to be drawn is that the 1.33MPwould equate to the same amount of color captured as the low end 3CCD cams I see mentioned like the Panasonic, and obviously the ability to have the colors seperated and printing on their own CCD would lead to a bit better of overall quality, or would you say that there is even more quality to be had by seperating them out like this than the numbers show?

Also, does the resolution of the CCD affect resolution of the raw file when exporting? In other words would I be able to come in with a 1.3k pixel width picture as opposed to a 460 or 480k pixel width? Forgive me the newbie Q's please, I'd rather ask the questions and seem like a newb than spend $700 and end up feeling like one. And I really don't like to buy things on ebay any more.. I've had bad experiences with both ebay and paypal.

As for the lux, I believe my crappy mini-dv cam Dc-1 has a lux of 1 or 2, and if you could see what we got away with during our shoot (practically no lighting at all, even shooting into a backlit indoor scene, you'd see why the low lux is pretty important to me. That said, if the tradeoff is that I can't get away with my low-key lighting in order to pickup a lot better of res or color pickup, well, I might just make that trade.

Really, I wish I could tell you all how totally blown away I was with my now 10yr old Studiomini-dv, but I think I'll let my movie speak for itself.

I believe the conclusion to be drawn is that the 1.33MPwould equate to the same amount of color captured as the low end 3CCD cams

Click to expand...

Well, not really (someone correct me here if I am wrong!). One chip camera's originally capture picture in as a greyscale type image that is then run through a filter to reproduce the necessary colors. This results in 1) less resolution and 2) less color fidelity.

With 3 chip cameras you have one chip dedicated to one of the three colors RGB. A prism splits the incoming beam up which the CCD's then combine to produce the final picture. This provides a much crisper picture and higher fidelity in the color spectrum.

Additionally, on the Panasonic, you only have tiny 1/6” chips so optical imperfections will be exaggerated and you might loose some picture clarity, but you may not

Click to expand...

Indeed this is a possibility. I can't say much from personal experience about this as I haven't used very many cameras with larger CCDs. I do know, however, that the PV-GS70 has a Leica Dicomar Lens which is an excellent lense meant for clarity. Leica produces some of the finest lenses I know.

if the tradeoff is that I can't get away with my low-key lighting in order to pickup a lot better of res or color pickup, well, I might just make that trade.

Click to expand...

The panasonic comes with a feature called "MagicPix" that supposedly gives you the chance to shoot with less light. Haven't tried it myself. It also comes with a programmed back light auto exposure that may solve some of the lighting problems you mention.

EDIT:

A few more important notes about the PV-GS70:

1) The image stabilization sucks (not only is it digital it doesnt seem to do anything at all!). This doesnt really affect me though as I use a tripod and (homemade) steadycam which works great.

2) As has been mentioned it doesn't have very good low light capabilities though I have yet to try "MagicPix". Technically you would loose picture quality with this feature but it would enable you to shoot in very low light situations.

the low light capabilities seem to be the largest flaw in this camera (To me). I have noticed that if I wander around without enough light the picture picks up very noticable artifacts so you have to use some lighting (or perhaps MagicPix...). Normal room lighting should be decent enough to produce a picture.

It’s amazing the quality of lenses these days at the price. A prosumer camera like the ones you’re taking about, the most expensive piece is the lens. Almost everything else is cheap plastic. They are really high quality for the resolution and price. Of course they pale in comparison to a high-end video or low-end film lens, but that’s why they’re so cheap. What it comes down to is how much real estate the ccd has for the light. On a 1/4” ccd (6.35mm), if you have an optical imperfection of 1mm (that’s huge but just for an example - and this does not include light diffraction that would also occur) that’s ~1/6 of the total frame. However on the 1/6” ccd (4.234mm), if you have an optical imperfection of 1mm it’s ~1/4 of the total frame. Now if this is a one chip, that area is effectively cut into a bit less than half depending on the manufacturer and chip setup because more than half the chip’s physical space is dedicated to chroma signal, and shape and composition is mainly influenced by luminance. So, for the 1/4” ccd, that same imperfection would look like it took up 1/3 of the frame. So the smaller the chip, the more exacting the standards. Even the slightest mis-collimation of the lens would cause a soft image. That’s one of the reasons I still like some of the old tube cameras. You could have a fly on the lens and not notice with those big old receptors.

General rules of thumb: bigger ccd is better, less compression is better, 3 ccds are always better than 1, 720p is better than 1080i, true 16x9 is better than 4x3, 4:2:2 sampling is better than 4:1:1, DVCproHD (DVCpro100) is better than DigiBeta is better than DVCpro is better than DVcam is better than miniDV is better than most analog, and the higher the bit rate the better.

Of course, rules are meant to be broken.

I really appreciate this info.

And I think I just discovered the truth here.

Seems the 1.3MP has nothing to do with the video resolution of the CCD, that is still capture only, and the video is likely only 690k pixels, which works out to 230k per color or 200k even if you discount the overhead.

So it appears the Panasonic, despite its nasty 1/6" CCD limitations, wins by default, having overall better resolution per CCD. Certainly there must be some advantage to seperating out those colors as well.

I appreciate you guys taking the time here, really. As I said, I'm a college student with very little money and I want to make sure I don't rush off and buy the first thing I get my hands on.

And I just found a very interesting review on the Gs70, 120, and new 200 at dvspot with same videos. I think I will be buying one of them, but I will test them first. Thanks again guys.

You have chosen wisely.

3CCDs

WideShot said:

I've got to know this.

2 Questions:

1) I want high quality DV. I don't have the money to spend on a 3CCD, but if I have to I have to. I want to make cinema-like quality, and I don't need it necessarily to be in 24p, but I do want nice visual quality, so I want either a 1.33MP CCD or a 3CCD cam with 16x9, somewhat like this: http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027123&page=2 . My assumption is that since I have no way of controlling the seperated RGB once editing in Vegas, there might be very little difference between the 3CCD's quality a huge 1.33MP CCD. Am I correct, or no?

2) How does 16x9 work? Does it just letterbox the picture automatically? Does it attempt to squeeze more picture in the frame, and if so, does it distort the image? In other words, does the end result end up coming across a poor man's replacement for an HD cam or does it look cool enough to use?

A lot of stuff to answer I appreciate all answers I get, TIA.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the best value you're going to get on a 3ccd camera is to go for a sony PD-100. They have surprisingly good image quality considering that they are a low end prosumer camera. Another great camera that you can find for under $5000 is the Panasonic DVX100. You probably can't find a better camera for that price in the world of MiniDV
Just my opinion, take it or leave it

WideShot said:

I've got to know this.

2 Questions:

1) I want high quality DV. I don't have the money to spend on a 3CCD, but if I have to I have to. I want to make cinema-like quality, and I don't need it necessarily to be in 24p, but I do want nice visual quality, so I want either a 1.33MP CCD or a 3CCD cam with 16x9, somewhat like this: http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027123&page=2 . My assumption is that since I have no way of controlling the seperated RGB once editing in Vegas, there might be very little difference between the 3CCD's quality a huge 1.33MP CCD. Am I correct, or no?

2) How does 16x9 work? Does it just letterbox the picture automatically? Does it attempt to squeeze more picture in the frame, and if so, does it distort the image? In other words, does the end result end up coming across a poor man's replacement for an HD cam or does it look cool enough to use?

A lot of stuff to answer I appreciate all answers I get, TIA.

Click to expand...

Im not as knowledgable as these guys are but I bought the Camera that Shaw suggested. Sears has it for an amazing 650 bucks and its so clear it is pretty close to a high end 4:3 ratio broadcast camera is.

As I was saying in another thread that none of these cameras are true 16:9.. only the HDV camcorders (1080i)

these are 720 res.

All the cameras do to make 16:9 ratio is mask the video and crop it to look wide angle.

You can do this in Vegas Video.

Im trying like hell to save nearly 4k to buy a HDV camera now that sony makes one for 3700 bucks SRP

Between that and 3DS max I can make some fun stuff.


Right now Im in the process of moving and getting things ready so I havent had any chance to play with my new mini 3color chip camcorder. but it is like day to night from the standard 1chip camera I got. but that camera is cool too because it has night vision. I busted some punk ass kids behind my house late at night who were throwing rocks. They thought because they were in the dark in the park that I couldnt see them but the whole time I got them with 0 light.

Im still not sure what true 16:9 is when you crop with 720x res.

I was told 720x405 but some of the videos I see cropped to lettbox are 720x389.

Does anyone know what the official size of res is for 16:9?