first consumer 1/2 chip cam at DVinfo.net

Robert Mann Z. · July 29th, 2005, 07:42 AM

the optura 600 really came out of no where, the fact that it has a 1/2.8 chip gives hope to a 1/2inch chip xl3 or even gl3...below gives you idea of how much resolution that sucker must be pulling, and it should be a low light king as well

optura 60 wide mode pixels
1/3.4-inch CCD
1,230,000 pixels

optura Xi
1/3.4" CCD
2,200,000 pixels (approx. 1,230,000 effective pixels-tape

canonxl2
1/3"
680,000 pixels (total)

Sony HDR-HC1
1/3" 3000K Pixel CMOS Sensor
1983K Pixels (16:9); 1486K Pixels (4:3)

optura 600
1/2.8 -inch CCD
approx. 3,500,000 pixels (4:3)
approx. 2,990,000 pixels (16:9 IS* OFF)
approx. 2,740,000 pixels (16:9 IS* ON)

3,500,000 pixels is just sick on 1/2.8 inch chip, noise should not be an issue any more either, i guess...to bad the rest of the spec on the cam aren't up to snuff

no optical stabilization, small lens, no manual mode...

Boyd Ostroff · July 29th, 2005, 08:17 AM

Well chip sizes like 1/3", 1/4", etc. are pretty hard to get your head around because they aren't actual measurements of anything. Originally this dimension refered the the diameter of a cylindrical vacuum tube in old cameras but was later applied to solid state sensors with image areas comparable to 2/3" diameter tubes. So numbers like 1/4.7" and 1/2.8" are really just made up by the manufacturers and you would need to see actual chip dimensions to understand them.

However, putting this all aside just for the sake of argument, 1/2.8 = 0.357 and that is a lot closer to 1/3" (0.333) than it is to 1/2" (0.500) so it's kind of a stretch to call that a 1/2" sensor.

Also, is it native 16:9? If not then you would be letterboxing to shoot widescreen which reduces the effective area of the chip. I'm not really knocking the camera at all, and it is great that they're using a bigger chips. Just pointing out that 1/2.8" isn't a whole lot bigger than 1/3".

Robert Mann Z. · July 29th, 2005, 09:24 AM

whenever some says something like "I'm not really knocking the camera at all" it means they really are, it falls under the same pretense as "i don't mean to offend anyone, BUT" means there just about to offend someone or the ever popular "to be honest with you" means there just about to lie... :)

actually i think the camera is so so but the increase chip size is somethingt to get excited about, if you feel this stuff trickles up from time to time...

1/2.8 is not a 1/3 chip its bigger if ever by a fraction, its a good move for the industry and keep in mind this chip is not in your new scuba cam or an xl2 its in a soccer mom optura...

the chip doesn not appear to be 16:9 native which is why you would get more pixels 4:3 then 16:9, but who cares neither is my semi pro dvx...

Boyd Ostroff · July 29th, 2005, 09:45 AM

OK, OK, point taken :-)

I just think calling 1/2.8" the "first consumer 1/2 chip camera" is a bit of a stretch. Based on other discussions around here, those strange fractions confuse people. In the case of a 1/4.7" chip, many see the 4.7 and note that it's bigger than 4 so they assume the chip is larger than 1/4" when it's actually the other way around. I suspect the camera manufacturers are hoping you'll do exactly that...

Agreed though: bigger chips are certainly a step in the right direction - bring 'em on!

Patrick Jenkins · July 29th, 2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Also, is it native 16:9? If not then you would be letterboxing to shoot widescreen which reduces the effective area of the chip. I'm not really knocking the camera at all, and it is great that they're using a bigger chips. Just pointing out that 1/2.8" isn't a whole lot bigger than 1/3".

Considering it's an Optura I'd imagine it's real 16:9.

Boyd Ostroff · July 29th, 2005, 01:13 PM

I'm sure you're right about that. However many (if not most) cameras use a chip which is native 4:3 and sample 16:9 from a letterboxed area within it. As long as the chip's pixel count is high enough (which it certainly is in this case) you still get real 16:9. But my point was that you aren't using the full surface area of the chip, so it will be similar to using a smaller CCD.

On the XL2 you have the opposite situation. The chip is 1/3" native 16:9, so if you shoot in 4:3 mode it's more like a 1/4" chip.

Robert Mann Z. · July 29th, 2005, 09:00 PM

there is a picture of the chip on japan's web site, its a 4:3 chip, i know canon did not make this chip, i wonder who did sony? panasonic?....

Chris Hurd · July 30th, 2005, 07:37 AM

Guys, the nature of your various comments here makes me think you haven't read my laboriously prepared Optura pages!

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/index.php

Notes on Optura CCD sizes: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/ar...eage.php#opccd

Canon never reveals their source for CCDs. Personally I think they missed the boat years ago by not getting into CCD production, and it's too late now.

Dan Vance · July 30th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Notes on Optura CCD sizes: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/ar...eage.php#opccd

Chris,
I think you should go one step further in your conversions, for comparison with standard actual CCD diagonals:
2/3": 11mm
1/2": 8mm
1/3": 6mm
1/4": 4mm
With the oddball fracto-decimal-thingys, the actual diagonals are probably being fudged by the manufacturers, but we can assume the true diagonal is about (but no more than) 70% of the given chip measurement.
That gives us:
1/2.8": 6.3mm
1/3.4": 5.2mm
1/3.9": 4.6mm

In descending order for easy comparison:
2/3": 11mm
1/2": 8mm
1/2.8": 6.3mm
1/3": 6mm
1/3.4": 5.2mm
1/3.9": 4.6mm
1/4": 4mm

Tommy Haupfear · July 31st, 2005, 09:02 PM

I always assumed the CCDs were getting larger just to accomodate the millions of pixels. I don't really think you can have a native 4MP CCD and have it smaller than 1/3". Just take a look at 4MP digital cameras and you'll see what I'm talking about as they all have 1/2.5", 1/2.7", and 1/2.8" CCDs.

As for low light performance.. It requires a large CCD, low pixel account, refined DSPs, and of course a quality lens. The VX2100 is a great example of all of these.

Dan Vance · July 31st, 2005, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy Haupfear

I always assumed the CCDs were getting larger just to accomodate the millions of pixels. I don't really think you can have a native 4MP CCD and have it smaller than 1/3".

I think that's true. They are pretty much at the low limit for pixel size. From what I've read, minimum practical pixel (CCD well) size is about 2 microns. And the minimum space between pixels is the same, since you have to have a place to transfer the charge to. If you calculate that out, a 4MP 1/3" chip would be past that limit. Pixels smaller than 2 microns would have poor sensitivity, plus they would be getting uncomfortably close to the upper wavelength of visible light (0.7 microns).

Gints Klimanis · August 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM

I'm shopping around for a 2nd small camcorder as my 1998 little JVC died
recently. I'm looking at the Sony HC90, Panasonic PV-GS250, Canon Optura60. Thank you very much for all of that Optura information, as there is more info that I haven't seen in the other on-line reviews.

July 29th, 2005, 07:42 AM	#1
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	first consumer 1/2 chip cam the optura 600 really came out of no where, the fact that it has a 1/2.8 chip gives hope to a 1/2inch chip xl3 or even gl3...below gives you idea of how much resolution that sucker must be pulling, and it should be a low light king as well optura 60 wide mode pixels 1/3.4-inch CCD 1,230,000 pixels optura Xi 1/3.4" CCD 2,200,000 pixels (approx. 1,230,000 effective pixels-tape canonxl2 1/3" 680,000 pixels (total) Sony HDR-HC1 1/3" 3000K Pixel CMOS Sensor 1983K Pixels (16:9); 1486K Pixels (4:3) optura 600 1/2.8 -inch CCD approx. 3,500,000 pixels (4:3) approx. 2,990,000 pixels (16:9 IS* OFF) approx. 2,740,000 pixels (16:9 IS* ON) 3,500,000 pixels is just sick on 1/2.8 inch chip, noise should not be an issue any more either, i guess...to bad the rest of the spec on the cam aren't up to snuff no optical stabilization, small lens, no manual mode...

July 30th, 2005, 07:37 AM	#8
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Guys, the nature of your various comments here makes me think you haven't read my laboriously prepared Optura pages! http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/index.php Notes on Optura CCD sizes: http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/ar...eage.php#opccd Canon never reveals their source for CCDs. Personally I think they missed the boat years ago by not getting into CCD production, and it's too late now. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 24th, 2005, 05:24 PM	#12
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	Chris, thanks for the Optura pages ! I'm shopping around for a 2nd small camcorder as my 1998 little JVC died recently. I'm looking at the Sony HC90, Panasonic PV-GS250, Canon Optura60. Thank you very much for all of that Optura information, as there is more info that I haven't seen in the other on-line reviews.

July 29th, 2005, 08:17 AM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Well chip sizes like 1/3", 1/4", etc. are pretty hard to get your head around because they aren't actual measurements of anything. Originally this dimension refered the the diameter of a cylindrical vacuum tube in old cameras but was later applied to solid state sensors with image areas comparable to 2/3" diameter tubes. So numbers like 1/4.7" and 1/2.8" are really just made up by the manufacturers and you would need to see actual chip dimensions to understand them. However, putting this all aside just for the sake of argument, 1/2.8 = 0.357 and that is a lot closer to 1/3" (0.333) than it is to 1/2" (0.500) so it's kind of a stretch to call that a 1/2" sensor. Also, is it native 16:9? If not then you would be letterboxing to shoot widescreen which reduces the effective area of the chip. I'm not really knocking the camera at all, and it is great that they're using a bigger chips. Just pointing out that 1/2.8" isn't a whole lot bigger than 1/3".

July 29th, 2005, 09:24 AM	#3
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	whenever some says something like "I'm not really knocking the camera at all" it means they really are, it falls under the same pretense as "i don't mean to offend anyone, BUT" means there just about to offend someone or the ever popular "to be honest with you" means there just about to lie... :) actually i think the camera is so so but the increase chip size is somethingt to get excited about, if you feel this stuff trickles up from time to time... 1/2.8 is not a 1/3 chip its bigger if ever by a fraction, its a good move for the industry and keep in mind this chip is not in your new scuba cam or an xl2 its in a soccer mom optura... the chip doesn not appear to be 16:9 native which is why you would get more pixels 4:3 then 16:9, but who cares neither is my semi pro dvx...

July 29th, 2005, 09:45 AM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	OK, OK, point taken :-) I just think calling 1/2.8" the "first consumer 1/2 chip camera" is a bit of a stretch. Based on other discussions around here, those strange fractions confuse people. In the case of a 1/4.7" chip, many see the 4.7 and note that it's bigger than 4 so they assume the chip is larger than 1/4" when it's actually the other way around. I suspect the camera manufacturers are hoping you'll do exactly that... Agreed though: bigger chips are certainly a step in the right direction - bring 'em on!

July 29th, 2005, 01:13 PM	#6
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	I'm sure you're right about that. However many (if not most) cameras use a chip which is native 4:3 and sample 16:9 from a letterboxed area within it. As long as the chip's pixel count is high enough (which it certainly is in this case) you still get real 16:9. But my point was that you aren't using the full surface area of the chip, so it will be similar to using a smaller CCD. On the XL2 you have the opposite situation. The chip is 1/3" native 16:9, so if you shoot in 4:3 mode it's more like a 1/4" chip.

July 29th, 2005, 09:00 PM	#7
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	there is a picture of the chip on japan's web site, its a 4:3 chip, i know canon did not make this chip, i wonder who did sony? panasonic?....

July 31st, 2005, 09:02 PM	#10
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I always assumed the CCDs were getting larger just to accomodate the millions of pixels. I don't really think you can have a native 4MP CCD and have it smaller than 1/3". Just take a look at 4MP digital cameras and you'll see what I'm talking about as they all have 1/2.5", 1/2.7", and 1/2.8" CCDs. As for low light performance.. It requires a large CCD, low pixel account, refined DSPs, and of course a quality lens. The VX2100 is a great example of all of these.