A (stupid) PAL XL2 question - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders
Canon XL2 / XL1S / XL1 and GL2 / XM2 / GL1 / XM1.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 23rd, 2004, 08:06 PM   #31
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Anderson : But if it were as simple as that then every camera chip need be no more than the pal or NTSC frame size. -->>>
It is as simple as that. For optimal video quality, that is what you want. You want the biggest pixels you can get, as long as there are enough of them to cover the frame. That's why in broadcast cameras you'll always see CCD's with just enough pixels to cover the frame.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2004, 08:09 PM   #32
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
<<<-- Originally posted by Russell Newquist :
However, the real point is that having more pixels on your CCDs than on your final image (as the XL2 does) is far better than having less pixels on your CCDs than on your final image (as the XL1 and XL1s do), so there should definitely be a noticeable picture quality increase when upgrading from the older cameras to the newer one. -->>>
True to a point. The # of pixels reflects the density of the pixels on the chip, and to some degree that reflects the resolution the camera is capable of. But there are other factors that are affected by the pixel count as well, namely latitude and low light performance. Tiny pixels have lousy light-gathering capability and can't hold as much of a charge so you get worse low-light performance. Resolution is not the sole determining factor for whether a video image looks good.

The optimal solution is to have just enough pixels to cover your frame size, and to have as large a chip as possible.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2004, 08:32 PM   #33
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa. Canada
Posts: 163
However Barry it would not be a benifit for Canon to reduce the pixel count. Would it? And according to your statement about having enough pixels to just cover the chip might read to a straight logic layman type like myself as meaning all chips have just enough pixels to cover them, otherwise they would simply not be covered (with those particular size pixels) Now it seems that there is an optimum size of pixel. What is its size? I don't understand how it could be just enough to cover the chip because you could do that with 4 or 6, but this would not be optimum. I'm going to assume that Canon optimised the pixel count for that size of chip otherwise I'll be wearing a straight-jacket before the XL2 hits the streets. Thanks for the info, it did help.
Bill Anderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2004, 01:23 AM   #34
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
I meant "enough pixels to cover the format's frame". i.e., for DV in an NTSC camera, you want at least 720 x 480 pixels. For a high-def 1080 camera, you'd want to have at least 1920 x 1080 pixels. Any more than that would mean that the pixels were smaller than necessary, any fewer than that would mean limited resolution.

Canon put in enough pixels to cover the DV frame at a 1:1 ratio, considering that the CCD pixels are square and the DV frame pixels are non-square. However, had they made the chip be actually 16:9-shaped, those pixels could have been much larger, which would mean better light-gathering capability and less issues with latitude and noise. Because they only use a smaller 16:9-shaped chunk off a 4:3 CCD, they had to cram a lot more smaller pixels onto the chip in order to have enough to cover the DV frame with enough pixels to provide adequate resolution.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2004, 11:19 AM   #35
RED Code Chef
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Holland
Posts: 12,514
Just to indicate it again, shooting in true/native 16:9 on DV will
increase your VERTICAL resolution, NOT horizontal. Yes, horizontal
will have a higher sampling rate and this wider field of view, but
as indicated only 720 pixels of those are stored.

So beside the wider FOV and higher sampling the real benefit is
in the vertical resolution.
__________________

Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com
DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef

Join the DV Challenge | Lady X

Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors
Rob Lohman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2004, 01:29 PM   #36
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Centreville Va
Posts: 1,828
>>The question of why we're not all using PAL now is simple (as Chris implied) - namely that we're dealing with the matter of huge scale. North America is a big, big market<<

Colin, heres some trivia for you...

When I was stationed in West Germany in the late 70s, I brought my B&W NTSC TV with me and a step down voltage converter (from 220 to 110) but still at 50hz. I was able to pick up the local German TV station (video only) just fine. Great picture and everything.
Armed Forces Radio and Television Stations managed to broadcast 50hz with NTSC style interleaved audio so we had sound.

So... in order to save money...do the latest TVs have the built in ability to show either PAL or NTSC? And is the NTSC market simply not being told about it? hmmmmmm That would go with the North America gets dumbed down products theory, hehehehe
Joe Carney is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:24 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network