CMOS vs CCD at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Wedding / Event Videography Techniques
Shooting non-repeatable events: weddings, recitals, plays, performances...


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16th, 2011, 08:19 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 69
CMOS vs CCD

Can anyone recommend a very good HD 3 chip CCD camcorder. I have a Sony HDR FX 1000 with 3 CMOS and it is a nice camera but when recording fast action sports I get some jitter. My Cannon GL2 which is DV only does a great job recording sports but it does no offer HD option. Thanks.

Larry Kropp
L&M Video
Larry Kropp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2011, 10:17 PM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,609
Re: CMOS vs CCD

The JVC HM Series (100, 700, 750, 790) are CCD cameras. The 100 series is 1/4 inch while the 7XX series are all 1/3 inch chips. I've never used the 100 but have used the 700 as well as the older HD series and they are great cameras, but do require more of everything than the GL2. They need professional power be it V-lok or 3 stud plus charger, bigger bag, heavier duty tripod and head all of these add up to more money, lots of it but the image is superb.
YMMV
__________________
What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer.
Don
Don Bloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2011, 11:51 PM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Hi Larry

Cameras are moving away from CCD unforunately...it's a pity cos I like the way CCD's handle footage. However, just bear in mind that technology has come a long way since the type of CMOS chips of the FX1000 ... I had to upgrade from Panasonic HMC70 to 80 and the chips changed to CMOS so naturally I was mortified after seeing "jello effects" and "rolling shutter" .. However technology has seemed to have jumped a huge step forward and the new chips have no jello or rolling shutter problems..the Panasonics supposedly had the occasional vertical image breakup but mine can do fast pans without any issues.
Image quality is way up there and a LOT sharper than my CCD's too.

I know it's a big step but consider going to an SDHC card camera...you save a fortune on tape and after the initial reluctance they really are the way to go!!!

BTW : Do you know Chip Thome ???? he's in GB too!!! we are good friends!!!

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 09:23 PM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 69
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Hi Chris thanks for the reply. I reseached the HMC80 and I like it but it only has a 12x zoom and I need at least a 20x zoom for sports. Can you add a zoom lens? Also are you saying with the HMC80 I should be able to record fast action sports w/o jello effects? Will or how does the SDHC card communicate with my Adobe Premiere Pro CS 5? Can I capture the video from the camera while the card is in it or do I have to put it in the card reader in my computer? Will the card reader accept a SDHC card? Does the camera have a firewire output? If it does I s/be fine. Finally are you saying the HMC80 with 3 CMOS has a better picture or video then a 3 CCD chip camera?

I don't know Chip but G.B. is a small town so maybe I'll run into him. He is involved in video production?

Thanks.

Larry
Larry Kropp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 09:26 PM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Green Bay, WI
Posts: 69
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Thanks Don I'm going to reseach these JVC Series cameras. Looks like the 790 is +$10,000 so I'm not for sure if I can get that past my wife unless I buy her that new car she wants.

Larry
Larry Kropp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 09:41 PM   #6
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,609
Re: CMOS vs CCD

If that's the kind of camera you're looking at you might look at the 700 or newer updated version the 750. The 700 with a 17 lens is a great combo, the 750 has many of the features the 790 has but is a fair amount less. Again I like the 17 lens on it. Dont't forget the Anton Bauer Battery's and a decent AB charger. I always liked to have 4 Dionic90's and a 4 position intellicharger so with that you'd probably be right around an additional $2900, plus a bag or case to carry it and a good solid head and set of legs which can set you back a few bucks. The 700/750 is a great camera and could carry you thru for quite a while. It records 25 or 35mbps AND you have the choice of MOV or MP4 plus with the SXS attachment you can go MXF or get a Nano and go wild and crazy.
Unless the 790 has specifically what you need maybe save a few bucks and go with the 700 or 750.
Just a though so you don't have to buy you wife the little 2 seater convertible. Maybe she'll go for the hardtop. ;-)
I used to shoot for NASCAR and most of our cameras (not the hard mount but the handheld and Robotics which is what I did) used 16 or 17s and I had no problem get a really well framed shot down the track from turn 3 down to turn 2 on a 1 mile track
__________________
What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer.
Don
Don Bloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 10:16 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Hi Larry

The Panny 3MOS chips are fine for sports BUT the lens is only 12 X and I personally wouldn't stick a tele lens on the front..that just defeats the purpose...Actually do a search here for "surfing" there was a guy also looking for a cam with a minium of 20x zoom.... the JVC will do it at a cost of course but you might find something that won't need the gift of a convertible to the wife!!

The other option is to look at a DSLR maybe....they have rather nice BIG lenses ...Chip actually has a bunch of GH2 and with adapters you can essentially use any lens as long as you are happy with manual focus...with a body under $1K it's a cheap option!! I actually don't like the DSLR fad at all but a lot of people rave about them!!

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 10:59 PM   #8
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Re: CMOS vs CCD

The Pansonic has 1/4" chips, which would look anemic compared to your FX1000, unless someone knows something I don't. I can't believe they make a shoulder mounted cam with such small chips, but there must be a market for it. I know some of the new small Panasonics are getting great review, however.

There is a new Sony coming out, but I can't remember the model number, it is supposed to be awesome, and expensive. If you have the bucks, it might be a solution for you.
__________________
http://JeffHarperVideo.com
The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 11:04 PM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Byron Bay, Australia
Posts: 1,142
Re: CMOS vs CCD

I'm not entirely sure it's a CCD vs CMOS problem you're having. I've shot plenty of footage surfing footage at 20x zoom with my FX7 and also seen plenty of footage shot on the NX5 & Z5 without any hint of jitter. CMOS chips do not introduce jitter into shots at all, they simply make it a little more noticable because of the rolling shutter which then causes distortion. Instead of having shaky footage, you have shaky, distorted footage. If there is no shakiness to begin with, there will not be a difference between the CMOS and CCD image.

Also HD, being alot sharper than SD, tends to make tiny little things such as micro-jitters or slightly off focus far more noticable - perhaps there has always been some small wobble in your footage that you've never noticed?

Or perhaps it is to do with your tripod, if you are using one (you definitely should be at 20x zoom!). Maybe it was perfect for the GL2 but the FX1000 is a little too heavy for it.

Or it could be an IS problem - Do you have IS on or off? It should be off when you are using a tripod and doing a lot of panning, but at all other times leave it on.

I'd definitely explore other possibilities before you consider upgrading what is really a great camera for the kind of work you describe. If you do need to upgrade to a CCD camera though, check out the Panasonic HMC150. Probably not as much zoom as you'd like, but a solid performer.
John Wiley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2011, 11:19 PM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,550
Re: CMOS vs CCD

I believe manufactures have gone to CMOS because its cheaper to produce and a little better under low light. Why would the vast majority of cameras over $10K use CCD if it was bad? My point is there are other more important factors that should drive your decision, such as focal length of the lens, weight, etc
Pete Cofrancesco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2011, 12:10 AM   #11
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Hi Jeff

The HMC 40 and HMC80 both have 1/4" 3MOS chips and actually produce a sharper image than the HMC150 with 1/3rd CCD's. The course the 150 is a lot better in low light!!

Not sure how they manage a sharper image with smaller chips but check the AVCCAM forum and you will see it's a fact!! The image on my HMC82's are razor sharp..in one instance the bride was actually amazed that she could see the fine hair on her arms during the register signing!!!

I'd love 1/2" or 2/3rd" CCD's in a shoulder mount cam but that pushes the price into unrealistic territory!!!

Just bear in mind that the FX is an "older" camera and uses slightly older technology so vertical smear and jello might still occur....I have seen FX footage on a motorcycle that was scary and very jello intensive..the newer Sony's would have overcome this issue by now.

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2011, 06:53 AM   #12
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Chris, you're the second person that has raved about these Panasonics that I've seen, they must be remarkable.

John, I think you are onto something.

Larry, can you describe jitter? I've shot soccer with the FX1000 and had no issues. Jitter implies camera movement or shaking.

I'm wondering if you are actually seeing distortion as a result of the conversion process from HD to SD. This is a common problem. If you are shooting in HD and downconverting, could be your problem.

Another potential issue, is your shutter speed set to 100th of a second? For sports, you definitely want a faster shutter speed. If not, you should try that. If you are running in full auto in low light your shutter speed could be dropping and causing issues. Below 60th of a second and you're asking for trouble.

The FX1000 is admittedly older, but still a remarkable camera. If you cap the gain at 12dB, set your shutter speed to no less than 60, but preferably at 100, and downconvert your footage properly you should see some great results.

Another thing, if your final product is SD, are you shooting in SD widescreen? If not you should be. With the FX1000 there is no advantage to downconverting the HD footage to SD, it only adds work and potential issues in the downconversion and resizing process.

The FX1000 has a wide starting point, and has a fantastic zoom. There is no reason it shouldn't be a solod performer for what you are doing. If you need better low light, then you will have to upgrade to something newer with larger chips, period.

The HMC 150 would be a lateral move, and while some disagree, I've owned it also and found it slightly poorer thant the FX1000 in low light. It's gain is cleaner than the FX1000, but with the FX1000 you need less of it.

Larry, witth the GH2, my current camera, I shot my first video and posted it, and saw what I thought was moire. I was coached through the process of proper resizing and conversion and my problems vanished.

With the FX1000 I complained of grain, then I was told to limit my gain in the menu to 12dB and my grain disappeared. My footage looked like it was being shot with a new camera, the difference was remarkable.
__________________
http://JeffHarperVideo.com
The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2011, 07:53 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Hey Jeff

IMO the image is super sharp...however the claim that the 80 and 40 is technically sharper than the 150 was not made by me at all..I just read some specs on the AVCCAM forum where that was stated.

You have probably hit the nail on the head with shutter speed...my cams seem to default to 50 (we are PAL) and a reasonably fast zoom shows no image slurring BUT manually switch to 1/25th and the image breaks up badly...it's just too slow for moving objects and I think even CCD's would suffer the same fate!!

Most cams also have "scene modes" and they usually have a "sports" setting which forces the shutter to at least 1/100th ...maybe try that first!!

Just for interest, how does the GH handle fast sports scenes as long as the shutter speed is high enough???

Chris
Chris Harding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2011, 08:18 AM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Chris, this video of a squirrel
is slowed down around 80%, if that tells you anything. The GH2 or GH1 would give remarkalble results using the right lens, the lens choice is always key with the GH2/GH1.

The problem would be focusing, I would find it close to impossible to keep things in focus.

If I had to guess, you could try using a 14-140mm, but in marginal lighting conditions the F/3.5-5 is too slow.

It could be done using a 20mm for a wide shot, than using the 14-140mm on the primary camera. But of course you really need a "real" video camera for sport with auto focus for consistent results.

If you had an EX1 or FX1000, HMC150, etc the GH2 with a fast prime would be really nice for cutaways and closeups of the action from the sidelines. You can slow it down with no noticeable loss in quality. The sensor is 8/10 of an inch.
__________________
http://JeffHarperVideo.com
The horror of what I saw on the timeline cannot be described.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2011, 07:12 PM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 8,222
Re: CMOS vs CCD

Thanks Jeff

So the autofocus on the GH1 wouldn't handle stuff like say, motorsports or a field sport where you have to follow a player running ???? I think the DSLR CMOS sensors seem to suffer the most with objects moving fast left to right (or viceversa) but if you are following a player with the camera keeping him/her in frame the camera is really moving, rather than the subject.

It would be interesting how a GH1 or 2 would handle this kind of camera movement

BTW: Chuck is really cute!!!

Chris
Chris Harding 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 > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:49 AM.


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