I take your word for it. I always thought 3CCD cameras won because of optical stabilizers, thus better sharpness, less blur, and, sure, better color processing. Never heard they are much more sensitive... But my knowledge in the area is simply incomparable with yours, sure.
Optical stabilization, which was invented by Canon, and licensed by Sony, is done in the lens. It's the same as what is found in Canon and Nikon SLR lenses.
What you have to take into consideration is that a sensor has to record four channels of light information. A channel for RED, GREEN, BLUE, and Luminance. Their are various different ways for sensor technology to record these different channels. Consumer cameras essentially combine them all together. As you move into professional cameras they are divided up more. For movie style cameras they are all completely divided so that RED GREEN, Blue are recorded on completely different channels. To be able to record them all separately requires more pixels, which is why movie cameras have as much as 12 million pixels.
With imaging in general to record a sharper picture, with more dynamic range, and a deeper color gamut requires over sampling. The original always needs to record more information than will be used in the final presentation.
People think Blu-ray looks really good. It pales in comparison to the original camera footage.
I know only approximately how color channels are processed in mass market cameras. Sensor is always b/w, I believe. But logically, for 4 channels of HD video you need something near 10 Mpix. I think this number even includes pixels needed for digital image stabilization. And I doubt seriously professional quality cameras use digital image stabilization...
I know only approximately how color channels are processed in mass market cameras. Sensor is always b/w, I believe. But logically, for 4 channels of HD video you need something near 10 Mpix. I think this number even includes pixels needed for digital image stabilization. And I doubt seriously professional quality cameras use digital image stabilization...
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
I'm one of those people who come from the pro market, so I don't need convincing about quality.
But, what, maybe 99.9% of all those buying camcorders and sill cameras are wanting small and cheap.
The thing is that digital has made things so much better even in the cheapest models that people are often happy with what I consider to be junk.
Many people used to buy, and in smaller numbers still buy, throwaway film cameras with deplorable IQ. Sometimes we would have customers bring them in to us to print on our minilab. Often you couldn't even get a decent 3.5 x 5 or 4 x 6. Exposure and color were so far off that Herculean measures were called for as the machine couldn't fix it itself. The one element plastic lenses didn't help either.
When compared to that, the iPhone's 2 MP camera is a marvel of IQ. I've seen phones with higher rez cameras with poorer pictures.
With camcorders, 1/3" sensors, and even 1/4" sensors are common on the low end. Depth of field is so great with these things that focus is sloppy on these cameras, because except at high tele extensions, it isn't needed.
Web (2.0, God bless its creators) helps that a lot, I dare say. Pictures, which are taken just to be published on the web, are far less gourmand in resolution, artifacts cleaning etc. The smile should be wide enough, that's crucial.
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
It's not an expensive pro camera but it sure is a popular pro camera. The interchangeable lens has IS.
And many pro cameras don't shoot a full 1920 x 1080. I'm not going to get into that complex subject though.
Ah, you see, "three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCD with 1.67M Pixels". You're smart about that, too. Joke. Nice apparatus.
Canon quality was always at the top, IMO. So my simplistic 10 y.o. Canons shoot perfect amateur still images and videos. I'm looking lazily for some 3CCD, too (low end, sure, something at 3000 eur). But no big need right now...
Ah, you see, "three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCD with 1.67M Pixels". You're smart about that, too. Joke. Nice apparatus.
Canon quality was always at the top, IMO. So my simplistic 10 y.o. Canons shoot perfect amateur still images and videos. I'm looking lazily for some 3CCD, too (low end, sure, something at 3000 eur). But no big need right now...
The difference here is that these are trilinear sensing modules. They don't compare to the 1/3" RGB sensors on cheap cameras. This camera is considered to have extremely high image quality for a camera under $10,000. It's used in a lot of pro work. Cheaper models are using 1/$" sensors, and they're going to 1/6" sensors.
Both Sony and Canon make a couple of very good low priced pro models for ENG that are in your price range. They don't offer interchangeable lenses, viewfinders or other niceties, but the IQ is very good.
The difference here is that these are trilinear sensing modules. They don't compare to the 1/3" RGB sensors on cheap cameras. This camera is considered to have extremely high image quality for a camera under $10,000. It's used in a lot of pro work. Cheaper models are using 1/$" sensors, and they're going to 1/6" sensors.
Both Sony and Canon make a couple of very good low priced pro models for ENG that are in your price range. They don't offer interchangeable lenses, viewfinders or other niceties, but the IQ is very good.
I shoot twice a decade in night conditions. OK, that's bad 1/6" but I can accept to live with it. But, surely, I will do my best to afford 1/4" or 1/3" sensor. There's nothing, that I know of, to reproach Canon for in the daylight.
P.S. Never considered Sony... Will stay with Canon...
In video nomenclature any camera that sub-samples chrominance and luminance channels are considered Y/Cr/Cb, which is pretty much all of them. Any cameras that record the full chrominance and luminance channels are considered RGB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
In video nomenclature any camera that sub-samples chrominance and luminance channels are considered Y/Cr/Cb, which is pretty much all of them. Any cameras that record the full chrominance and luminance channels are considered RGB.
That's correct, but I'm talking about the filters over the sensors, which are usually RGB.
why on earth wouldnt they add video capture capabilities? even the cheapest mobiles from a few years ago had video capture, I was stunned to too learn that the iphone cant do this
Comments
I take your word for it. I always thought 3CCD cameras won because of optical stabilizers, thus better sharpness, less blur, and, sure, better color processing. Never heard they are much more sensitive... But my knowledge in the area is simply incomparable with yours, sure.
Optical stabilization, which was invented by Canon, and licensed by Sony, is done in the lens. It's the same as what is found in Canon and Nikon SLR lenses.
What you have to take into consideration is that a sensor has to record four channels of light information. A channel for RED, GREEN, BLUE, and Luminance. Their are various different ways for sensor technology to record these different channels. Consumer cameras essentially combine them all together. As you move into professional cameras they are divided up more. For movie style cameras they are all completely divided so that RED GREEN, Blue are recorded on completely different channels. To be able to record them all separately requires more pixels, which is why movie cameras have as much as 12 million pixels.
With imaging in general to record a sharper picture, with more dynamic range, and a deeper color gamut requires over sampling. The original always needs to record more information than will be used in the final presentation.
People think Blu-ray looks really good. It pales in comparison to the original camera footage.
I know only approximately how color channels are processed in mass market cameras. Sensor is always b/w, I believe. But logically, for 4 channels of HD video you need something near 10 Mpix. I think this number even includes pixels needed for digital image stabilization. And I doubt seriously professional quality cameras use digital image stabilization...
I know only approximately how color channels are processed in mass market cameras. Sensor is always b/w, I believe. But logically, for 4 channels of HD video you need something near 10 Mpix. I think this number even includes pixels needed for digital image stabilization. And I doubt seriously professional quality cameras use digital image stabilization...
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
This is one of my cameras:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=17035
It's not an expensive pro camera but it sure is a popular pro camera. The interchangeable lens has IS.
And many pro cameras don't shoot a full 1920 x 1080. I'm not going to get into that complex subject though.
I'm one of those people who come from the pro market, so I don't need convincing about quality.
But, what, maybe 99.9% of all those buying camcorders and sill cameras are wanting small and cheap.
The thing is that digital has made things so much better even in the cheapest models that people are often happy with what I consider to be junk.
Many people used to buy, and in smaller numbers still buy, throwaway film cameras with deplorable IQ. Sometimes we would have customers bring them in to us to print on our minilab. Often you couldn't even get a decent 3.5 x 5 or 4 x 6. Exposure and color were so far off that Herculean measures were called for as the machine couldn't fix it itself. The one element plastic lenses didn't help either.
When compared to that, the iPhone's 2 MP camera is a marvel of IQ. I've seen phones with higher rez cameras with poorer pictures.
With camcorders, 1/3" sensors, and even 1/4" sensors are common on the low end. Depth of field is so great with these things that focus is sloppy on these cameras, because except at high tele extensions, it isn't needed.
Web (2.0, God bless its creators) helps that a lot, I dare say. Pictures, which are taken just to be published on the web, are far less gourmand in resolution, artifacts cleaning etc. The smile should be wide enough, that's crucial.
iPhone camera is indeed very good in its class.
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
This is one of my cameras:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=17035
It's not an expensive pro camera but it sure is a popular pro camera. The interchangeable lens has IS.
And many pro cameras don't shoot a full 1920 x 1080. I'm not going to get into that complex subject though.
Ah, you see, "three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCD with 1.67M Pixels".
Canon quality was always at the top, IMO. So my simplistic 10 y.o. Canons shoot perfect amateur still images and videos. I'm looking lazily for some 3CCD, too (low end, sure, something at 3000 eur). But no big need right now...
Ah, you see, "three 1/3" Native 16:9 CCD with 1.67M Pixels".
Canon quality was always at the top, IMO. So my simplistic 10 y.o. Canons shoot perfect amateur still images and videos. I'm looking lazily for some 3CCD, too (low end, sure, something at 3000 eur). But no big need right now...
The difference here is that these are trilinear sensing modules. They don't compare to the 1/3" RGB sensors on cheap cameras. This camera is considered to have extremely high image quality for a camera under $10,000. It's used in a lot of pro work. Cheaper models are using 1/$" sensors, and they're going to 1/6" sensors.
Both Sony and Canon make a couple of very good low priced pro models for ENG that are in your price range. They don't offer interchangeable lenses, viewfinders or other niceties, but the IQ is very good.
The difference here is that these are trilinear sensing modules. They don't compare to the 1/3" RGB sensors on cheap cameras. This camera is considered to have extremely high image quality for a camera under $10,000. It's used in a lot of pro work. Cheaper models are using 1/$" sensors, and they're going to 1/6" sensors.
Both Sony and Canon make a couple of very good low priced pro models for ENG that are in your price range. They don't offer interchangeable lenses, viewfinders or other niceties, but the IQ is very good.
I shoot twice a decade in night conditions. OK, that's bad 1/6" but I can accept to live with it. But, surely, I will do my best to afford 1/4" or 1/3" sensor.
P.S. Never considered Sony... Will stay with Canon...
Sensors are always B/W. It's the filters over the sensing sites that give the various colors the ability to be processed. Camcorders generally don't use RGGB. They usually use RGB, and thus, three channels. But not always in the cheapest models.
In video nomenclature any camera that sub-samples chrominance and luminance channels are considered Y/Cr/Cb, which is pretty much all of them. Any cameras that record the full chrominance and luminance channels are considered RGB.
That's correct, but I'm talking about the filters over the sensors, which are usually RGB.