Jump to content


Photo

CCD Specs Revealed


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Matt Irwin

Matt Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 February 2006 - 02:33 AM

http://www.dvxuser.c...ead.php?t=47570

Well... wow.
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 25 February 2006 - 03:31 AM

http://www.dvxuser.c...ead.php?t=47570

Well... wow.


Hi,

960x540 so that is a 1/4 the resoloution of 1920 x 1080. For $6000 could anybody really expect more.

Stephen
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 February 2006 - 07:59 AM

Hi,

Makes you wonder what the XLH1 and HD100 are doing. I suspect that no HDV camera actually bothers with a chip that's more than 1440 across.

Phil
  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 25 February 2006 - 09:17 AM

This may be of interest

http://nifp.org/site..... shootout.pdf

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 February 2006 - 10:47 AM

This may be of interest

http://nifp.org/site..... shootout.pdf

Stephen


That test seemed to spark even more arguments. JVC and Pansonic have come up two different methods to overcome the problems of progressive frames on 1/3" CCDs. I expect that only by testing and experience that we'll find out the shooting situations in which their problem solving causes us problems.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 February 2006 - 10:55 AM

That test seemed to spark even more arguments. JVC and Pansonic have come up two different methods to overcome the problems of progressive frames on 1/3" CCDs. I expect that only by testing and experience that we'll find out the shooting situations in which their problem solving causes us problems.


It sounds like the question is, if you want 24P HD, one choice would be between the Canon with a higher pixel count per CCD but a fake 24P process, versus true 24P on the HVX200 but with an image uprezzed from lower pixel count CCD's. Which seems to point to the JVC camera as perhaps the best at doing 24P in HD.

But if I wanted 1080i, it seems like the Canon would be the winner all-around.
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 February 2006 - 11:28 AM

It sounds like the question is, if you want 24P HD, one choice would be between the Canon with a higher pixel count per CCD but a fake 24P process, versus true 24P on the HVX200 but with an image uprezzed from lower pixel count CCD's. Which seems to point to the JVC camera as perhaps the best at doing 24P in HD.

But if I wanted 1080i, it seems like the Canon would be the winner all-around.


That's a decision you have to make when deciding on the right camera for a particular or the type of productions you're working on. All these cameras have trade offs, for example I'm not to sure that I'd want to use the Canon on a production that involves a lot of hand held work, but it would be fine on a production shot mostly on sticks. Certainly, selecting on the basis of image quality in 1080i alone it seems to be the one to go for.
  • 0

#8 Mr. Shannon W. Rawls

Mr. Shannon W. Rawls
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Producer
  • Lemiert Park(Hollywood), CA.

Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:36 PM

It sounds like the question is, if you want 24P HD, one choice would be between the Canon with a higher pixel count per CCD but a fake 24P process, versus true 24P on the HVX200 but with an image uprezzed from lower pixel count CCD's.

David,

I was wondering....

If some people define the Canon XL-H1 by the CCD and not what it's actually recording, thereby some people giving it the name "fake 24p"
then.....isn't it fair.....
that we define all cameras by the CCD, thus labeling the HVX200 as a "fake HD" camera??? I mean, 960x540 is hardly HD, and thats the CCD we're talking about, right?

just wondering what your expert thoughts are on that.

- ShannonRawls.com

P.S.: Actually, it may possibly be considered "fake 4:2:2" as well??

Edited by ShannonRawls, 27 February 2006 - 03:38 PM.

  • 0

#9 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:39 PM

Well, all these consumer HDV cameras are fake. Let's face reality. Mega-corp electronics giants sliding nonsense past people who don't know any better and just got a new credit card and have big starry-eyed dreams. Real HD, not even up to 16mm par, costs a 100 grand a camera. Only Panasonic's DVCPro HD seems worth considering as affordable. Barely worth considering...

However, I am glad to see them, as although HDV will be very noticeably sub-standard to film originated projects, it will be easier on the eyes and less headache-producing than the DV originated features we've been subjected to. And it works just great for microbudget lifestyle TV production.
  • 0

#10 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 February 2006 - 10:58 PM

This begs for a shootout comparison between the HVX200 and the Reel Stream "Andromeda" hack of the DVX100. They both can feed their quasi-HD signals direct to a laptop via USB, but I would think the image from the Andromeda would be superior at a considerably lower price. Worth comparing for those considering this workflow with the HVX200.
  • 0

#11 Brian Wells

Brian Wells
  • Sustaining Members
  • 438 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:47 PM

Real HD, not even up to 16mm par, costs a 100 grand a camera.

Once again I will post this frame grab from an Andromeda DVX100:
http://www.reel-stre...c.tif?type(jpg)

Stunning quality from a "DV" camera. Makes you wonder, "what will they think of next?"
  • 0

#12 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:00 PM

Hi,

What they'll think of next is doing the same thing to an HD-100.

Gah, JVC, why didn't you put an HD-SDI output on the damn thing?

Phil
  • 0

#13 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:10 PM

Hi,

What they'll think of next is doing the same thing to an HD-100.

Gah, JVC, why didn't you put an HD-SDI output on the damn thing?

Phil



Well they did put the component outs on it, just like Sony did on the F900. And just like we all did with the F900, we complained that there should be an HD-SDI out so that we don't have to use a black box to convert the signal. The new F900/R will have the HD-SDI, just like the Varicam and even the Canon XL-H1.
  • 0

#14 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:53 PM

First a response to whoever said that HDV is not true HD and is nonsense.

I just finnished a feature in HDV (sony, HVR-HU1) and it looks pretty good. I am not saying its anywhere near a varicam, or F900. But compared to the availible choices (HDV or DV in this case) the high def TRUMPS the dv25. There is use for it (anyone shooting mini-DV for a feature should go with HDV if there is a chance of blowup) and there are downfalls to it (better get your look in camera, because color correction lattitude is limited) but in the end someone spending a total of 5-6 grand on a camera can't ask for any better, and its light years ahead of options we had just 3 years ago.

with that said.

I cant believe Panny dropped the ball! unbelievable! 720x1280 res that the HD100U has I thought would be the minimum to call prosumer HD. That figure is barely above regular DV. The thing that really gets me is why take such a small amount of pixels, and blow it up to a huge frame, and compress THAT FRAME!! why not lightly compress the native relosolution of the chips and DSP the HD out during playback? Seems like you could keep the image less compressed and hold closer to the original image.

I was hopping to see an andromeda version, now I dont care if they do or dont. The HD-100U is what I wanna see andromedized now. And if JVC could put a SSE warning light in camera, that would be cool too, reduce the paranioa of shooting with it.

I just wanted a camera that can shoot HD for under 10grand, is that so much to ask!!! (apparently so. maybe I should wait untill BeeKeeping lands me a cool million, then go buy a viper w. filmstream)
  • 0

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 March 2006 - 03:59 PM

Hi,

> The HD-100U is what I wanna see andromedized now.

The HD-100U with a better lens, you mean (Possibly a pro35-alike with film primes). The supplied one is utter junk, worse than the servo optics on the XLH1. So what we're now doing is taking an HD-100, chopping the lens off the front, the recorder off the back, and throwing away 75% of the imaging electronics.

Which is insane.

What we actually do is run around and start looking at commercially-available 3-chip 1080p cameras with a C mount and go from there, because stripping the HD100 down to that is a complete waste of most of the camera. Like you, my first reaction was "Put a hard disk recorder on it and it's great!", but then you think about it and you go "what the hell am I paying for, then?"

> I just wanted a camera that can shoot HD for under 10grand, is that so much to ask!!!

Yes.

Phil
  • 0

#16 Tenolian Bell

Tenolian Bell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 907 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brooklyn, NY

Posted 01 March 2006 - 05:13 PM

whoever said that HDV is not true HD and is nonsense.

I thought would be the minimum to call prosumer HD.


The minimum of what can be called HD seems to keep dropping year after year.

I'm not surprised about Panasonic specs. There is physical reciprocity in how many pixels you can squeeze on a 1/3 inch chip. The more you attempt to squeeze on there the lower the over all sensitivity.

My expereince with the FX-1 I found it a bit more contrasty than most other prosumer cameras.
  • 0

#17 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 01 March 2006 - 06:01 PM

The HD-100U with a better lens, you mean (Possibly a pro35-alike with film primes). The supplied one is utter junk


I wouldnt trust an 'HD' Lens that cost less than 4,000 anyways (most I see aftermarket are upwards of 20-25K, and thats for the much easier to hit target of 2/3" optically speaking the 1/3" seems much more difficult to accomplish with equal sharpness and resolution.)

But I hear the 11K wide angle is decent, and if they are smart they would release others. Its main advangtage is the fact that it has no scalling from the chip. The chip itself is 1280x720 and does a true 24fps. I am not sure, but I believe it does not rely on pixel shift either (pixel shift I am not a fan of, its a cheap way to increase 'sharpness and resolution' but consistantly fails in high frequency detail (which to me seems a bit beside the point. Isn't resolution supposed to add meaning to high frequency detail? Does anyone actually feel they need MORE pixels to render a flat white wall? No you need it to render the texture of the bricks in a building)

But I am a fan of the mini-35 HDV combo. I just wish I could pull all the data off the chips in an uncompressed 10bit form (andromeda style), but keep the recording section the same for when I do eng stuff, or stuff where its impossible/impracticle to take a computer and all the andromeda support gear(I live in Alaska, so backcountry shooting always imposes obvious restrictions. It might be hard to run from a Kodiak Grizzly with andromeda weighing you down(considering they run 35mph, it might be hard either way you look at it.)

But to make a camera thats almost twice what the DVX costs and to say 'you need DVCPRO HD on the P2 cards, at an additional 3grand' to get the quality is almost conning people to pay for something they are not getting. (though its almost worth it for the DVCPRO-50 feature. Im sure in SD it will be the sharpest, best picture around, but only compared to DV25 cameras in its price range.

oh and the comment about asking for an HD camera under 6K, yes that was facishist. But a decent camera with a near HD resolution is possible. The ZU1 looks good compared to mini-DV, but it will never trump a cinealta, and It still has so many frustrating user interface problems that it needs much work.
  • 0

#18 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 01 March 2006 - 08:47 PM

David,

I was wondering....

If some people define the Canon XL-H1 by the CCD and not what it's actually recording, thereby some people giving it the name "fake 24p"
then.....isn't it fair.....
that we define all cameras by the CCD, thus labeling the HVX200 as a "fake HD" camera??? I mean, 960x540 is hardly HD, and thats the CCD we're talking about, right?

just wondering what your expert thoughts are on that.

- ShannonRawls.com

P.S.: Actually, it may possibly be considered "fake 4:2:2" as well??


Dude, give it up! the XLH1 is NOT 24p!!! so many people have already told you why not, and you keep trying to argue with everyone- Why? just say you like 24F and it looks good to you! it is not true 24p!!! And before you go on about how you own an XLH1 so you are the only person qualified to talk about it, I used one a few days ago and I thought that the 24F didn't look anywhere near as good as the 24p on an XL2, it looked more like frame mode on an XL1 (in terms of movement only, not resolution etc..).
I don't want to start a whole 'nother argument on this topic but just wonder why you keep insisting on the obviously false.
Cheers.
P.S. maybe the HVX is "Fake" HD hence the cheapness of it, but that still doesn't make the XLH1 24p!!!!!
  • 0

#19 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 March 2006 - 09:19 PM

Hi,

XLH1 does not do 24P in a way that would be considered "proper" by many people.

Obviously, the signal it records on tape is progressive, but it's no more "real progressive" than it'd be if you shot interlaced and delaced it in post.

It's cruddy. Whether it's more cruddy than the HD100 with the crappy lens and lower intrinsic resolution is another matter.

> I just wish I could pull all the data off the chips in an uncompressed 10bit form (andromeda style)

As I say, someone give me an HD100 body, a Xilinx Virtex2 dev board, and about... ooh, four, five months?

Seriously, someone should get on this.

Phil
  • 0

#20 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 March 2006 - 08:07 AM

Phil,

I assume that you didn't manage to test the 3.5mm wide angle zoom with the camera. It sounds like it's the one to go for with the JVC, although the price with camera is getting up towards the cost of the new XDCAM HD cameras and even allowing for extra money could be the one to go for.

Brian
  • 0


Opal

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineLab

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

CineTape

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc