Finally a 3 CCD Camcorder under $1k !

Comments

• Reply 1 of 13

  bunge Posts: 7,329member

  March 8, 2003 10:10PM

  Any chance this thing is Mac compatible? What's Panasonic's track record with the Mac?
• Reply 2 of 13

  hmurchison Posts: 12,425member

  March 9, 2003 2:01AM

  [quote]Originally posted by bunge:
  
  <strong>Any chance this thing is Mac compatible? What's Panasonic's track record with the Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Well I'm hoping that with Panasonic and Apples <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/apr/07panasonic.html"; target="_blank">collaboration</a> the full line of Panasonic MiniDV will be supported as well. They're doing some nice things with their cameras and Apple should be promoting them.
• Reply 3 of 13

  nebagakid Posts: 2,692member

  March 9, 2003 7:54AM

  what are the benefits of a 3CCD DV to only one?
  
  
  
  yeah, i think it works with a Mac, it has a fireWire port, and I think there is a standard for having fireWire on a DVCam and Apple supports it <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
• Reply 4 of 13

  zo Posts: 3,117member

  March 9, 2003 10:34AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
  
  <strong>what are the benefits of a 3CCD DV to only one?
  
  
  
  yeah, i think it works with a Mac, it has a fireWire port, and I think there is a standard for having fireWire on a DVCam and Apple supports it <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  I dont know the exact specs, but CCD stands for Charged Coupling Device (or Couple Device or something). Anyhoo, normal cam corders have 1, broadcast TV, the camcorders TV use in the field, professional use, etc, use 3 CCD which gives better image quality, color saturation, etc. Just better in general.
• Reply 5 of 13

  hmurchison Posts: 12,425member

  March 9, 2003 12:28PM

  Zo is correct. A 3 CCD camera will dedicate one CCD to managing one of the Red, Green, Blue colors. Normally your lowcost cameras have one larger CCD that has the colors separated prior to the CCD I belive.
  
  
  
  With 3 CCD each CCD focuses only on it's colors and without the extra separation step colors are more saturated and vivid and low light performance increases.
  
  
  
  Reds and Greens really stand out. Yellows two actually.
  
  
  
  The industry seems to want to keep 3 CCD cameras in the Semi Pro and Professional ranks. I've been a little disappointed that once you go higher in Sony or Canons camcorder lineup you start getting into some frivolous stuff. Megapixel image capture that is far behind even the basic Digicam. Outlandish Digital Zoom. Larger LCD flip out screens and color viewfinders(I prefer B&W it's sharper and easier to focus).
  
  
  
  Panasonic is going to apply pressure on Sony and Canon. Sony should be embarrased as they produce many of the CCDs used in a majority of Cameras and Camcorders so they could have done this a while ago quite cheaply.
• Reply 6 of 13

  powerdoc Posts: 8,123member

  March 9, 2003 2:36PM

  I have a 3 CCD camera (sony tvr 900) , and the results is great especially for the red. The only problem is that the camera is big, i would love to see a very small 3 ccd camera.
• Reply 7 of 13

  xionja Posts: 504member

  March 9, 2003 3:31PM

  thats a hot camcorder
  
  
  
  the panasonic dv702 works great with my iMac. Its a great brand on the camera/camcorder front right now. canons are mishapen, jvc has color problems, and sony is too expensive.
  
  
  
  Now I wish i could buy this one.
• Reply 8 of 13

  nebagakid Posts: 2,692member

  March 9, 2003 5:24PM

  man, my canon elura is messed up right now!
  
  it will say it is recording, and the time code moves, but on playback, it is just blank
  
  
  
  DAMNIT! <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
• Reply 9 of 13

  frank777 Posts: 5,839member

  March 10, 2003 1:52AM

  So will this camera be broadcast quality, and useful for production houses on a tight budget, or is this still for a home consumer setup?
• Reply 10 of 13

  splinemodel Posts: 7,311member

  March 10, 2003 2:07AM

  Bah, CCDs are minor league. I want a 3 CMOS camera, and I can't imagine that it's going to be too long now until Canon puts one out. . .
• Reply 11 of 13

  nint Posts: 5member

  March 10, 2003 2:14AM

  okay, educate me, what's CMOS? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
• Reply 12 of 13

  serrano Posts: 1,806member

  March 10, 2003 2:36AM

  [quote]Originally posted by bunge:
  
  <strong>Any chance this thing is Mac compatible? What's Panasonic's track record with the Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
• Reply 13 of 13

  zo Posts: 3,117member

  March 10, 2003 8:46AM

  [quote]Originally posted by nint:
  
  <strong>okay, educate me, what's CMOS? </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS)
  
  
  
  And taking it from the following website, here is the low down. <a href="http://www.soundvisioninc.com/cmos.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.soundvisioninc.com/cmos.htm</a>;
  
  
  
  PS It was last updated almost 3 years ago... so, there could be updates.
  
  
  
  [quote] Where we were in 1997.
  
  
  
  In January of 1996, the common wisdom shared by many digital camera companies was that Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) technology just couldn't compete with Charge Coupled Device (CCD) technology because of certain shortcomings in image quality and sensitivity that were inherent to CMOS. Many of these companies had actually built prototype CMOS cameras and based their opinions on their practical experience with these designs. However, as is often the case in high technology, what is true today, may not be true tomorrow. When we started Sound Vision, in January of 1996, our belief was that just such a turn of events could occur with respect to the acceptability of CMOS detectors.
  
  
  
  CMOS and CCD technology share many common attributes. They are, after all, similar in structure, material and basic operation. The principal advantage of CMOS is that it can be fabricated at facilities that have higher volume, more modern equipment, higher yield and therefore lower cost than CCD manufacturers. In addition, CMOS requires less sophisticated driving and A/D circuitry which also affects the cost of implementation within the camera. These are reflected in the elimination of specialized clock drivers and correlated double sampling A/D converters that are required for CCD implementations. CMOS also operates at lower voltages, which means that less power is required, resulting in longer battery life.
  
  
  
  CMOS does, however have two principle disadvantages. First, the stationary noise pattern is higher than found in a CCD; and second, in that each pixel contains not just a photo diode, but in addition, amplifiers and selection circuitry, the actual area of the pixel that gathers photons is smaller. This is reflected as a reduction in sensitivity in comparison to a similar sized CCD. This is often referred to by describing the "fill factor" of the pixel, or the percentage of the pixel that gathers photons. <hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Full article at <a href="http://www.soundvisioninc.com/cmos.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.soundvisioninc.com/cmos.htm</a>;