Well the new 3 Chippers are out...
 

http://www.panasonic.com.au/catalogue/list.cfm?cat=2_1

now for the gs400...

A week ago, Pana AU only had 2 GS400 proto-types, so even if the specs are released soon, it's going to be some time for the PAL versions Down-Under. Thanks for the link!

I looked at that site. I notice the *size* of the CCDs is
not mentioned.

Now what does this tell you? :-))

That's right. :-((

Oh, well.

And as the CCDs get more "Megapixel", you know what that
does to the low light reach in itself, regardless of what they're
doing to the size of the CCDs.
I'm surprised this doesn't come up more.

I knew that. :-))

heh it is interesting to note that the gs120 is cheaper then the gs70. which cam is better. also are the gs200 ccd's the same as the 953 because they have the same pixel count and it is funny that this camera doesn't have 3 megapixel. Both these cams could be the perfect start for people getting into serious video because they are cheap for 3ccd.

Justin

The NTSC GS120 video effective pixel count is 290K X 3; the GS200's is 440K X 3. Therefore both pixels counts (video effective) are lower than the NTSC MX5/PV-DV953. :-))

Wonder when we'll see 1/8" CCDs. It's headed in
that direction.

Actually, some single chipper CCDs have been increasing in size lately. Sony for instance is peddling 1/3.6" CCDs in their 2 megapixel cams. Of course the low light performance is still dismal with all those pixels!

Is is the size of the CCD or how you use it?

I figure Tommy ought to know the answer to that one.

<<<-- Originally posted by Justin Boyle : heh it is interesting to note that the gs120 is cheaper then the gs70. which cam is better. also are the gs200 ccd's the same as the 953 because they have the same pixel count and it is funny that this camera doesn't have 3 megapixel. Both these cams could be the perfect start for people getting into serious video because they are cheap for 3ccd.

Justin -->>>


After reading the review of the GS120 over at CamcorderInfo.com ( http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/panasonic-pv-gs120-camcorder-review.htm ) I popped into Circuit City today to check one out in person. Unfortunately, I did it right after work and didn't have a tape handy to capture some video on. Anyways....

In my opinion, the GS70 is still the better camera for _manual control._ The GS120 doesn't have a focus ring, that was saved for the GS200. When you're in manual mode, if you zoom in on something, everything goes out of focus. The way to get things back in focus, is to push the auto/manual switch towards the front of the cam, and hold it there until it focuses. That's a poor implementation of a manual focus in my book. I spent a good 45 minutes with the cam, and didn't see another way to control focus manually.

Other than that, the cam felt great in my hands. Everything was within reach, and layed out pretty well. There's been a lot of talk about hiding the menu controls under the LCD. That's never bothered me. Then again, I shoot 90% of the time with the LCD screen. The Power LCD thing seems pretty cool, but at what cost? Sure it's gonna drain the battery, but how fast? One thing that I noticed in the review, is that the low light for this camera appears to be much better than the GS70. I've used my friend's GD70, and wasn't too impressed with it's low light capabilities.

I downloaded the GS120/200 manual from Pana's site and I'm gonna skim over it tonight and then head back to CC tomorrow with a tape to check out the 120 some more.

Right now, if I had to choose between the GS70 and the 120, I'd take the 70. And not just because you can find the 70 extremely cheap right now! :-) (Note: Circuit City's across the USA have been selling off excessive stock at ridiculous prices. One CC store 40 miles north of me, sold 4 off at $499 a piece.)

Personally, I'm more interested in the GS200. Especially if I can get it here in the States in black! (no, black doesn't make it "pro", it just looks very cool!!!) And that's even after reading some of the remarks on the web about the 200! ;)

frank that doesn't make sense to me. the pana aus website is showing thatthe ccds are 3x800. why is the pixel count that low then. possibly this cam has similar 16:9 system to the pdx-10 where it will actually widen the view. i don't know but it seems silly to get a ccd with that pixel count when only half are being used.

Justin

Justin, I mentioned, "video effective CCD pixels," for the NTSC versions. Also, the PAL versions may very well have more pixels, total count and video effective, like with the NTSC MX3000 and PAL MX300.

who knows but still the fact remains that it would be an utter waste. After a little looking around the ntsc version does have the same ccd's as the pal version. there is a review on camcorderinfo. The question still remains wether or not this will make the cams 16:9 mode better and similar to the pdx-10.

Justin

I should have read a little more. camcorderinfo says that the 16:9 mode is digitally altered so thats that. it is an utter waste of the extra resolution on the ccd's. Effectively you could say that because the are used on the ccd's is less then the effective, then they may as well be smaller than 1/6 inch.

Justin

in response t Pal vs NTSC resolution

one thing to note is that PAL is generally a higer res with a higher peaking colour than NTSC... res is anythign between 20k to 40k pixels and our legal broadcast colours are slight more "flexible" so contrasts are a lil deeper (generally speaking)

PAL - Perfection At Last. :-))

The GS120 and GS200 lack optical image stabilization and use pixels on the CCD for its digital image stabilization. That pretty much rules out a HQ widescreen mode. Some cams disable image stabilizatoin altogether while in 16:9 mode since they are both vying for the same CCD pixels.

thanks for that tommy. it only takes a little common sense to nut that one out doesn't it. does this mean though that the image stabilizer on these cams are going to be much better then before. wouldn't that be great. that was always the biggest thing against the gs-70 separating it from the 500. apart from 16:9 of course.

Justin

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Jefferson : in response t Pal vs NTSC resolution

one thing to note is that PAL is generally a higer res with a higher peaking colour than NTSC... res is anythign between 20k to 40k pixels and our legal broadcast colours are slight more "flexible" so contrasts are a lil deeper (generally speaking) -->>>

NTSC can actually produce better colors than PAL. The problem of shifting color was only in analog broadcasting. If video cable was used there was no problem and today with digital recording and broadcasting the problem is all gone.

Contrast is the same as DV always records at 0 ire. It depends on how the display is calibrated.
Many people do not realize this but you get exactly the same pixel count per each frame both in PAL and NTSC. PAL has higher horizontal resolution but NTSC has higher temporal resolution.

Here are the numbers:

NTSC 720x480x30=10368000 pixels
PAL 720x576x25=10368000 pixels

Thanks, Chris.But why do people say, "NTSC, never the same color." :-))

Frank, that'll be the "Rose Tinted Glasses!"

Grazie

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Thanks, Chris.But why do people say, "NTSC, never the same color." :-)) -->>>

As I mentioned this was only a problem during early days of analog color RF broadcasting. Basically color subcarrier would shift in phase so when you went from channel to channel you would have to adjust hue. This was mostly eliminated when manufacturers started using transistors and IC's in TV sets.

If you went baseband video directly into monitor this problem never existed as there was no RF subcarrier. Nowadays with digital broadcasting this does not exist as there is no subcariers just data bits.