Comparison: SD 2/3 chip -- HD 1/3 chip at DVinfo.net

Jasper Blunk · June 21st, 2007, 12:41 PM

Comparison: SD 2/3 chip -- HD 1/3 chip

What is going to look better?

Asking for people's with experience comparing views.

Thanks.

Glen Vandermolen · June 21st, 2007, 01:42 PM

In my opinion - the HD chips, no doubt. I use a JVC HD200 and a Sony DNW-7WS Beta SX. The SX has a great picture, but putting it up against HD video on a widescreen HD monitor, well...
2/3" chips look great - in standard definition. But once you go HD, it's hard for any standard def camera to compete.
On a regular non-HD monitor, that might be a tougher comparison. But given a choice (and I do have that choice), I'd go HD every time.

Tim Polster · June 21st, 2007, 01:55 PM

Jasper,

I think you need to clarify if the output is for SD or HD.

Because as stated, if the output is HD, then the SD does not stand a chance.

If for SD, then I would stay with the 2/3" chips especially with a more robust color format like 4:2:2

Jasper Blunk · June 21st, 2007, 02:09 PM

Well the output would be for HD so...

John Bosco Jr. · June 22nd, 2007, 05:07 AM

Your comparison is messed up. You're not comparing formats; you're comparing chip size. In that respect, a 2/3" chip is always going to be better than a 1/3" chip, ie... better low light capability and better latitude. Now if you are comparing cameras, a broadcast 2/3rd inch SD camera vs. a prosumer 1/3rd inch HD camera. Then of course the HD camera is going to win that battle as far as resolution is concerned. However, compare them in certain environments like low light. The better picture might be the SD camera with 2/3" chips for some people.

Thomas Smet · June 22nd, 2007, 05:45 AM

I have compared a SONY DSR-500 (2/3" chips DVCAM) to a tiny SONY HC1 (1/3" single chip HDV) and in terms of raw detail and a more natural image the HC1 beat the pants off the DSR-500. SD video will always look like video where HD tends to look more lifelike.

Of course when it comes to low light performance the DSR-500 crushes the HC1 but I always tell people you can add light but you can't add pixels to a camera.

Adam Grunseth · June 23rd, 2007, 11:46 PM

The HD camera will have a way more detailed, more crisp, way sharper pictures with better defined edges. In every other respect though, the 2/3 inch SD will be better. The larger chips will give you better low light performance, more forgiving exposure lattitudes, more pleasing fall offs to highlights and shadows, better color reproduction, and be able to capture better color saturation as well as less noise overall.

June 21st, 2007, 12:41 PM	#1
Jasper Blunk New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA Posts: 42	Comparison: SD 2/3 chip -- HD 1/3 chip Comparison: SD 2/3 chip -- HD 1/3 chip What is going to look better? Asking for people's with experience comparing views. Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

June 21st, 2007, 01:42 PM	#2
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	In my opinion - the HD chips, no doubt. I use a JVC HD200 and a Sony DNW-7WS Beta SX. The SX has a great picture, but putting it up against HD video on a widescreen HD monitor, well... 2/3" chips look great - in standard definition. But once you go HD, it's hard for any standard def camera to compete. On a regular non-HD monitor, that might be a tougher comparison. But given a choice (and I do have that choice), I'd go HD every time.

June 21st, 2007, 01:55 PM	#3
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	Jasper, I think you need to clarify if the output is for SD or HD. Because as stated, if the output is HD, then the SD does not stand a chance. If for SD, then I would stay with the 2/3" chips especially with a more robust color format like 4:2:2

June 21st, 2007, 02:09 PM	#4
Jasper Blunk New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: USA Posts: 42	Well the output would be for HD so...

June 22nd, 2007, 05:07 AM	#5
John Bosco Jr. Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Pinellas Park Posts: 232	Your comparison is messed up. You're not comparing formats; you're comparing chip size. In that respect, a 2/3" chip is always going to be better than a 1/3" chip, ie... better low light capability and better latitude. Now if you are comparing cameras, a broadcast 2/3rd inch SD camera vs. a prosumer 1/3rd inch HD camera. Then of course the HD camera is going to win that battle as far as resolution is concerned. However, compare them in certain environments like low light. The better picture might be the SD camera with 2/3" chips for some people.

June 22nd, 2007, 05:45 AM	#6
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I have compared a SONY DSR-500 (2/3" chips DVCAM) to a tiny SONY HC1 (1/3" single chip HDV) and in terms of raw detail and a more natural image the HC1 beat the pants off the DSR-500. SD video will always look like video where HD tends to look more lifelike. Of course when it comes to low light performance the DSR-500 crushes the HC1 but I always tell people you can add light but you can't add pixels to a camera.

June 23rd, 2007, 11:46 PM	#7
Adam Grunseth Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Eugene Oregon Posts: 393	The HD camera will have a way more detailed, more crisp, way sharper pictures with better defined edges. In every other respect though, the 2/3 inch SD will be better. The larger chips will give you better low light performance, more forgiving exposure lattitudes, more pleasing fall offs to highlights and shadows, better color reproduction, and be able to capture better color saturation as well as less noise overall.