3 small CCD versus 1 larger CCD?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by john, Apr 19, 2009.

  1. john

    john Guest

    Some camcorders have 3 small CCDs (e.g. HDC-HS100).

    It seems mechanically simpler to use one 3x size bayer CCD (in this case it
    would be 1/6" x 3 = 1/2 inch)? This way there is no need for a color
    splitter.

    Could it be that the 3CCD approach is cheaper, due to the smaller lense
    (smaller sensor requires smaller image circle), even after incurring the
    cost of a color splitter?
     
    john, Apr 19, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. john

    james Guest

    It seems mechanically simpler to use one 3x size bayer CCD (in this case
    implicit in my question is the assumption that light gathering ability is
    the main measure of quality.
    Light gather ability is proportional to the size of all sensors added
    together, that is why I compare a 3ccd cam with 1/6" sensor with one-chip
    camera with 1/2-inch sensor -- they have the same total sensor size, and
    should produce approximately the same quality video.
     
    james, Apr 19, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. john

    Veggie Dave Guest

    Veggie Dave, Apr 19, 2009
    #3
  4. john

    David McCall Guest

    Sad to say, but generally speaking, through all of history, size has
    mattered.
    Within a given technology, bigger has most often provided higher resolution,
    less noise, and better sensitivity. Between generations all bets are off.
     
    David McCall, Apr 19, 2009
    #4
  5. john

    David McCall Guest

    Yeah, the Red did kind-of screw up the arguement that a 3 chip camera
    was the only way to get "profesional quality" pictures :)

    Remember when people would get upity over calling anything that was
    recorded electronically was NOT a film, it is just a lowly video.
    We don't hear that very much anymore.

    David
     
    David McCall, Apr 19, 2009
    #5
  6. john

    Veggie Dave Guest

    FFS, it's a technical article. More importantly, it's a technical
    article where it's very clearly stated that the most important thing is
    image quality *not* some mythical number.

    But don't let that tiny little problem get in the way...
    Only used a RED once - nice picture quality, easy to use, somewhat
    temperamental. Or was this another 'look at me, I'm so cool 'cos I use a
    RED' question that was asked purely for your ego purposes?

    I bet you can guess what I think the answer is to that question. Still,
    I'm sure you're a big fish in local cable TV production...
     
    Veggie Dave, Apr 20, 2009
    #6
  7. I found that site very informative, and enjoyed reading it.
    Did not find anything technically 'incorrect' in it.

    Well, 'Mysterium 12 M pixels' sounds more like eeh.... something
    that would need more investigation, unless you like 'mysteries'.
    Now 'mysterium' is market speech in my years ....
    :)
     
    Jan Panteltje, Apr 20, 2009
    #7
  8. john

    james Guest

    The bottom line question is how to compare two camcorders and make an
    educated guess as to which one has the better video quality, especially when
    comparing 1-chip to 3-chip camcorders. Sometimes you can get this
    information from reviews, sometimes not (e.g. very new model). Sometimes I
    find conflicting reviews, one says a camcorder has great low-light
    performance, another review says it has terrible low light performance. I
    just want a quick and dirty way to gauge them.
     
    james, Apr 20, 2009
    #8
  9. There is no "quick and dirty" way of gauging them. Best is trying the
    camcorders of interest, preferably when compared shooting the same
    material under the same lighting conditions. BTW, there is FAR more
    to evaluating results than resolution ("by the numbers", or by the on
    screen results), low-light range, etc. Color quality, tonal range,
    general exposure accuracy, etc. may in the end tilt the choice away
    from the first choice made on the basis of one or two characteristics.
    As an example, I bought a Sony TRV-950 untried based on my
    general liking for how Sony designed Mini-DV camcorders having
    liked their TRV-900 and VX2000 3-chippers and several Sony
    1-chippers I had owned compared with my experience with the
    camcorders of other makers. That small-chipped 3-chip camera was
    not very good, and I immediately sold it (its images had VERY poor
    tonality, being much too high in contrast...). As another example, the
    1-chip Canon HV20 has generally better image characteristics than
    even the excellent 3-chip relatively large-chip Sony VX2000. But,
    there is no contest between them in terms of low light range... For
    my reviews of many camcorders, go here --
    http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#video
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 20, 2009
    #9
  10. Unfortunately these statements are rather subjective. Everybody has a
    different taste about what amount of noise is good, and what not.
    Untill there comes a site like dpreview.com - which has standardised
    testing for photocamera's, you have to go and see it for yourself if
    the low-light noise is acceptable for you, or not.

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Apr 21, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.