I wonder...
 

I wonder if I can stick those PAL DVC30 chips in my MX300. They are both 1/4" CCDs, after all, and Pana cams---and please answer my mic questions here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=22928

What I'm asking is if a cam can be fitted with different CCDs, as long as the CCDs are the same physical size.

Frank,
well thats keen isn't it. I don't know if you are joking or not. I have no idea as to the answer to this question however i suggest no!!!! The reason i say this is because i believe that it is not only the ccds that improve over time but the electronic filters that turn the data from raw data to send it to tape. I would say that a lot of the inherent advantages would be lost because of the lack of newer better filters on an old cam. anyways frank there have been some killer threads on here haven't there about the new pana cams.

Justin

You're probably right, Justin. However, another thing that I was wondering about is if the GS100's CCDs are the same as the MX5000's CCDs. Killer threads? You betcha! Let's start one! Topic suggestions please.

I can think of one topic, right off hand: what comapany makes the most durable batteries for cams? Here's another one: who makes the best lens hoods (in a full range of sizes)?

I'm wondering what makes a newer camera more sensitive to light given that the CCDs appear identical (well physically) as in the case of the MX5K and GS100...is it the sensitivity of the CCD itself or the video engine or both?

Most durable batteries: as long as the cell is made in Japan, I dont care if its assembled in China.

Best lens hood maker: HOYA - WIDE selection at very reasonable price
Price-wise: MINETTE - CHEAP but works well.

By the way, here's a killer question (maybe). For exactly the same price, which would you buy: a shelf unit MX3000 (no head use, but some scratches on the body)or a brand new silver GS100K.

yes well i wouldn't be surprised actually if the ccds used in the gs100 were the same. i have a theory once again that it comes down to the filters used. It really is hard to tell. With the sony's, the ccd's now are advanced had which is a technology which I believe samples two frames of the same scene. one is taken with high sensitivity and the next is taken so that it is almost black. in doing this the ccd can sample the noise in both images and then using filters can erase it. This to me sounds like filters and more software oriented. correct me if i am wrong because i am no tech wiz just an avid enthusiast. This info was for what i recall of the ccds on the still cameras. however ccd technology is getting better and more efficient so can sample images at lower light. I guess you could compare it to a solar panel. a solar panel is made up of foto electric cells which turn light into electricity (pretty much what ccds do) you look at solar panels over time and smaller cells are putting out more power. its as simple as that i believe. well thats my little contribution. it would be good to know from a tech wiz that does know what they are talking about though.

Justin

oh yeh and about the battery question.
I bought one off ebay last week for my mx-500 for 27.50 aus. so i don't care if it is the worst brand it is 1/6th the price of the genuine pana job over here so i'm not complaining. i suggest u guys have a look at the ebay australia site. this was a brand new battery in its package. it cost me 10 postage and handling. it is the 220 size. i'd be stuffed if i bought the genuine part if it meant it last me 2 years instead of even 6 months.

Another set of I wonder questions.

I noticed that the EIS of Canon and Sony seem to be less crappy than Pany's.

First question, do they all have the same EIS technology?

Does this have something to do with the fact that both the Canon and Sony I played with have megapixel CCDs while the GS200 only has 800K?

Does it have something to do with the fact that both Canon and Sony are using bigger CCDs?

Not related to EIS but it appears that the higher the pixel count, the better the implementation of widescreen mode is. Does this mean that unless the CCD is native 16:9, there's no way for cams with 1/3" 340K CCDs to implement the same quality widescreen as say a cam with 1/4" 1.33MP?

Yes i guess that you could say that. however i don't see why there should be too much of a problem with 800k ccd's. anyways just another thought to your question frank. I imagine that the resolution of the ccds on the dvc-30 are higher than ur cam (just a guess) so the filters in the cam would have troubles down sizing the extra resolution so would be deemed incompatible.

Justin

Ugh, I think I'd go for the silver GS100. Actually, I would go for the GS100.I noticed this as well. I concluded some time back that the Sonys in general seem to have the best non-OIS type stabilizer.Good question. I don't know but I doubt it. What's the difference between DIS and EIS again?

I wonder why Pana can't / won't put larger CCDs into their cams.

I mean why couldn't the GS100 or DV953 have 1/3 inch CCDs instead of the 1/6 inch ?

Does it have anything to do with the physical size of the cam body or is it just a way for Pana to not sell a better prosumer cam and then have you buy a more expensive cam if you want larger CCDs (hence better low-light capability) ?

GS100, and mainly for its advanced 16:9 mode.

I'm not sure about Canon but Sony Super Steady Shot (sans OIS) uses electronic motion sensors.

EIS uses sensors to compensate for motion but some manufactureres also claim EIS when they are actually DIS. DIS uses motion compensation algorithims and part of the CCD for stabilization. In older cams it decreased resolution but with the advent of megapixel CCDs the cam had more disposable pixels and other than motion blur does not cut too heavily (if at all) into resolution.

As to why one image stabilization is better than another? Maybe some companies have better mathematical engineers? :)

Interesting discussion. Allan, I think I would opt for the GS100, too.

Maybe not in the camera, but the VX2000, XL1s and GL2 have made some good quality widescreen using an anamorphic lens. However, once you try to do it in the camera, it seems like you need the larger CCDs to provide the real estate necessary to squeeze the picture into 720x480 or you lose resolution. In this regard, I'm disappointed in the DVC30. I would have like to see HQ widescreen with this camera, but it looks like Panasonic opted for the higher light sensitivity by keeping the pixel count down...tradeoffs!

I don't even think that 340k CCDs is enough pixels even for a native 16:9 cam. Most 2/3" native 16:9 3CCD cams I've seen are 480k or higher. I would guess that a native 16:9 pro cam would capture at least 853X480 before going through its anamorphic process.