Joseph. if you got tired of explaining your story, which I suppose is based on some knowledge you got from amateur magazines, you should add this:

1. There is a huge difference between co-sited and shifted pixels w.r.t. the potential risk(see further) of shifted colors and color resolution under certain conditions.

2. Though you mention 4:1:1/4:2:2 you seemingly don't relate this to your story. If you considder a 1 to 1 structure (which is not allways the case) you got to know that the color components (Cr/Cb) are not based on a single pixel sampling but composed out of 4 surrounding pixels. Resulting in a general color blur which is much higher with co-sited(1CCD) structures than with overlapping or shifted 3CCD structures.

3. Though pixels are not "on the same location" you should know that in the mapped (subsampled CrCb) form, there is no problem to slighly electronically shift the pixel timings in order to get optimal Y/C outputs.

All by all Joseph, you should realise that the color resolution in a 3CCD using shifting techniques is not at all different from a non shifted one. The only thing what can happen is a sub optimal shift compensation during the further processing. And ...if you see color fringes, remember that chromatic aberations, Y/C delay mismatches in color encoders/decoders and convergence errors in CRT type displays are far more visible the your color registration story.

Again you are right the 3CCD will act like a single CCD if you can build the CCD which I mentioned earlier..and this will get you a Nobel prize.

Thanks for the clarification and knowledgable response, Andre.

Since it appears nothing new will be added and to avoid covering the same ground this thread is locked. If any members have additional questions please start a new topic.

Note from Dvi forum administrator Chris Hurd: This entire thread is an unfortunate occurence which resulted from my own inability to keep an eye on all things at all times. There is some serious misinformation here, and not only is the discussion now locked, but I'm considering deleting the entire mess. Part of my goal for this forum was to create a discussion area for reliable, accurate information.

What transpired is neither: the claim that the PV-DV953 is "not a true 3-CCD camera" because it uses an established, proven 20-year-old technology called Pixel Shift is absolutely, patently false. Of course the PV-DV953 is indeed a true 3-CCD camcorder, with the CCD block arranged in the standard arrangement of a prism directing light to individual image sensors based on wavelength. Pixel Shift technology involves a precise alignment of the green CCD which is offset from the red and blue CCD's by one-half pixel in both vertical and horizontal axes, with the offset happening either electronically or physically or both. The claim above that Pixel Shift results in inferior color reproduction due to higher sampling of the green CCD is also false... the green CCD also provides luma (brightness) information, and not "double green" as the post below suggests. Pixel Shift is not marketing hype by any stretch of the imagination, rather it is a very real and very effective and very much established Panasonic technology.

For those who need empiric evidence in order to disbelieve this most recent conspiracy theory, simply walk into to any retail store which has a Canon GL2 on display with power. Compare the superb color reproduction of the GL2 with any single-chip camcorder, and you'll see for yourself how the GL2's Pixel Shift does NOT affect color reproduction whatsoever. As I said, I'm not sure if I'm going to let the misinformation which follows stand up for much longer, but for now here it is, anyway.