Resolution 1/3 vs 2/3 at DVinfo.net

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 29th, 2005, 01:23 PM

Hey,

Maybe this is a stupid question, maybe not. Anyhow:
Why do people always say the image of an 2/3 SD camera converts much better to for example a film blow up then that of an 1/3 SD camera?
I know you capture more detail, and the low light performance is better, but next to that, is there something else? Or are these the sole reasons?
I saw The Edukators in the filmtheatres, shot on I think DVC50 (or how is it called?)
It looked magnificent, and I was very surprised to read afterwards it was shot in digital video, let alone SD.
Is the extra colour information and more detail the only reasons it looked to good on screen? Because, you then still have the problem of blowing up a resolution of 720*576 lines to a big screen...?
Anybody an answer, of IS the answer that that extra detail and colour information gives just such a much better picture, a blowup looks immediately much better?

Ash Greyson · December 29th, 2005, 01:49 PM

Everything about it is better... you mentioned most the things. Less noise means better blow-ups...

ash =o)

Doug Boze · December 29th, 2005, 06:46 PM

Agreed. A 2/3" CCD, even if the pixel count is identical to a 1/3" CCD, has four times the surface area. Naturally, that also corresponds to bigger glass, if we extend our comparison to the two cameras having the same viewing angle range. And bigger glass means more light. And more light means greater detail and contrast. And... yada yada yada.

I suspect as well, but don't know, that the larger area of each pixel also contributes a stronger signal with which the camera's circuitry has to deal with. Assuming that a given substrate of the CCD chip generates current in direct correlation to the amount of light hitting it. Anywho, a strong signal is always preferable over a weak one.

BTW, if you have used, say, a single-CCD camera, have you ever noticed that it produces the very best image in strong light? The irony is that typically single-CCD cameras have "better" low-light sensitivity than their 3-CCD cousins. Of course, left out in the cold is the color and detail aspects...

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 29th, 2005, 06:52 PM

Yes, I indeed notice that when I look back at footage I shot years ago, for a little movie, with my simple 1CCD JVC handycam, it looked very good in low light in contrast to my XL1s, which give a much superiour image, but is very bad in low light...

Chris Barcellos · December 29th, 2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Boze

BTW, if you have used, say, a single-CCD camera, have you ever noticed that it produces the very best image in strong light? The irony is that typically single-CCD cameras have "better" low-light sensitivity than their 3-CCD cousins. Of course, left out in the cold is the color and detail aspects...

The only thing I have to compare with are my Sony TRV 720, my first digital camera, and my VX 2000, a 3 chipper. VX2000 beats just about anything in low light, including newer single chip models, HD or otherwise, so I don't think this "rule" holds true... Can you explain what you mean by that more ?

Chris Barcellos

Doug Boze · December 29th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Can you explain what you mean by that more?

I think or thunk what I mean or meant or what has been said, suggested or averred is that a single-CCD cam will record a recognizable image at lower light levels than a three-CCD unit. However, at a level where the 3-CCD cam is workable, the 3-CCD machine will still produce a more accurate image than the single-CCD cam.

My ancient handycam is a Sony CCD-TR700 (why do I still have this? for shelf ballast?!) and a D8 which is a DCR-TRV230 (also single-celled), which has a control panel in braille, just like drive-through ATMs. I had a Sony EVW-300 Hi8 1/2" 3-CCD, until it decapitated, and until recently a Sony DXC-327A 1/2" 3-CCD camera coupled to a Sony DSR-1 DVCAM VTR. Both sold recently. I'm going for a Canon XL-2 next year (which is almost upon me, yikes!) <g>

Marcus Marchesseault · December 30th, 2005, 07:08 AM

Um, I'm guessing you haven't used one of the Sony 1/3" HAD CCD cameras. I have never seen a single-chip camera that can produce good video with just a single reading lamp on in a living room. My VX2000 and the PD150/PD170s that I have used can almost work effectively in candlelight. Every single-chip camera that I have seen goes completely grainy in low light due to the gain coming up so much.

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 30th, 2005, 08:41 AM

You of course now name the kings of low light, if you start talking about the VX and the PD's from sony.

Chris Barcellos · December 31st, 2005, 02:30 AM

Yes, I am sure the VX (consumer) and PD (Pro) models are the kings of the low light scene in DV... unless you are going into the 1/2 in chip cameras...

Low light functionality has to do with Lens light gathering ability, the size of the chip, the number of chip, and I think one less tangible thing, the system design. In the case of the Sonys, they appear to use all four elements to come out with a low light 1/3 3CCD camera. I am not sure what they have in the camera that Canon does not, but it appears Canon went with a different emphasis in its design or image processing which puts less emphasis on low light quality. The theory there is if it is to dark, don't shoot without adding light. Its great, but in those run and shoot situations you can end up with a grainy black screen when the Sony is producing a pretty good image still..

Incidentally I do have a 3 chip Panosonic GS 120. If I recall, it has 1/6 chip. Doesn't do near as well in low light either...

December 29th, 2005, 01:23 PM	#1
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Resolution 1/3 vs 2/3 Hey, Maybe this is a stupid question, maybe not. Anyhow: Why do people always say the image of an 2/3 SD camera converts much better to for example a film blow up then that of an 1/3 SD camera? I know you capture more detail, and the low light performance is better, but next to that, is there something else? Or are these the sole reasons? I saw The Edukators in the filmtheatres, shot on I think DVC50 (or how is it called?) It looked magnificent, and I was very surprised to read afterwards it was shot in digital video, let alone SD. Is the extra colour information and more detail the only reasons it looked to good on screen? Because, you then still have the problem of blowing up a resolution of 720*576 lines to a big screen...? Anybody an answer, of IS the answer that that extra detail and colour information gives just such a much better picture, a blowup looks immediately much better?

December 29th, 2005, 06:46 PM	#3
Doug Boze Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Auburn, Washington Posts: 218	Agreed. A 2/3" CCD, even if the pixel count is identical to a 1/3" CCD, has four times the surface area. Naturally, that also corresponds to bigger glass, if we extend our comparison to the two cameras having the same viewing angle range. And bigger glass means more light. And more light means greater detail and contrast. And... yada yada yada. I suspect as well, but don't know, that the larger area of each pixel also contributes a stronger signal with which the camera's circuitry has to deal with. Assuming that a given substrate of the CCD chip generates current in direct correlation to the amount of light hitting it. Anywho, a strong signal is always preferable over a weak one. BTW, if you have used, say, a single-CCD camera, have you ever noticed that it produces the very best image in strong light? The irony is that typically single-CCD cameras have "better" low-light sensitivity than their 3-CCD cousins. Of course, left out in the cold is the color and detail aspects... __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

December 31st, 2005, 02:30 AM	#9
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	A good low light camera is.. Yes, I am sure the VX (consumer) and PD (Pro) models are the kings of the low light scene in DV... unless you are going into the 1/2 in chip cameras... Low light functionality has to do with Lens light gathering ability, the size of the chip, the number of chip, and I think one less tangible thing, the system design. In the case of the Sonys, they appear to use all four elements to come out with a low light 1/3 3CCD camera. I am not sure what they have in the camera that Canon does not, but it appears Canon went with a different emphasis in its design or image processing which puts less emphasis on low light quality. The theory there is if it is to dark, don't shoot without adding light. Its great, but in those run and shoot situations you can end up with a grainy black screen when the Sony is producing a pretty good image still.. Incidentally I do have a 3 chip Panosonic GS 120. If I recall, it has 1/6 chip. Doesn't do near as well in low light either...

December 29th, 2005, 01:49 PM	#2
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Everything about it is better... you mentioned most the things. Less noise means better blow-ups... ash =o)

December 29th, 2005, 06:52 PM	#4
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Yes, I indeed notice that when I look back at footage I shot years ago, for a little movie, with my simple 1CCD JVC handycam, it looked very good in low light in contrast to my XL1s, which give a much superiour image, but is very bad in low light...

December 30th, 2005, 07:08 AM	#7
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Um, I'm guessing you haven't used one of the Sony 1/3" HAD CCD cameras. I have never seen a single-chip camera that can produce good video with just a single reading lamp on in a living room. My VX2000 and the PD150/PD170s that I have used can almost work effectively in candlelight. Every single-chip camera that I have seen goes completely grainy in low light due to the gain coming up so much.

December 30th, 2005, 08:41 AM	#8
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	You of course now name the kings of low light, if you start talking about the VX and the PD's from sony.