Exclusive review of HDR-HC1
 

The only word to describe - this camcorder is awesome for home users !!!

Regards

From the article: Achieving a resolution nearly triple to most MiniDV camcorders, the new HD Sony showed 656.1 lines of horizontal resolution and 480.9 lines of vertical resolution.

Here's resolution of an excellent 1/3" 3MP SD Sony camera:
bingo link "In 16:9 mode the camcorder gave us 314 lines of horizontal resolution with 275.9 lines of vertical resolution"

1. They don't know how determine resolution.
2. The resolution is about 2x as much as with DV

Based on those numbers the resolution would be 4x as much as DV, not 2x.

If it's twice as high in resolution on the horizontal, and twice as high on the vertical, then 2x2 = 4x as much. You could fit four SD images within the resolution of the one HD image.

They take the horizontal resolution and multiply it by the vertical resolution to come up with a "real resolution score". The HDR-HC1 came in at 315,518.49 as opposed to the model you site which came in at 88,526.07.

So to clarify, they're talking total resolution (HxW) as opposed to vertical resolution.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Resolution is linear quantity measured in lines/milimeter, does not relate to area.

Radek

If this camera actually has uncompressed ouput I still think it might make a great visual effects camera.

It is a single CMOS chip but is currently the only camera that could give a true 1920x1080 pixel raster uncompressed output.

I'm sure the glass isn't the best but it does seem to hold up a decent amount of detail.

Most visual effects shooting uses well controlled lightling so the low light shouldn't be a problem.

Another thing I love is that there is no pixel shift. You can't have pixel shift on a single chip camera. I know some people love pixel shift and it does a good job but when you are trying to edit video down to the pixel level it is best to just have straight 1 to 1 pixels.

Color does seem to be a little flat but that is easy to correct for VFX shots.

A lack of true 24p is an issue but there are ways around that. Does anybody know if there will be a seperate 25i Europe model?

Who told you that you cant have pixel shift with a one chip camera ? With a one chip camera you cant capture the frame all at once at the same time if you are using pixel shifting so their will be a temporal displacement.

With single chip camera you get bigger pixel shift than with 3 chip camera that includes pixel shift.

Radek

Nice look, with the lens hood.

I've just posted a few threads on the camera's controls and unanswered questions:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47018
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47019
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47020


A bayer system wouldn't be an ideal target for pixel shift. Pixel shift needs separate overlapping pixels, bayer is side by side, and three chip gives overlapping coverage.

I understand this sensor is maybe progressive in still mode?

Who told you that you can? Pixel Shift is a technology employed on three-chip camcorders where the green CCD (which receives 50% of the incoming light) is shifted electronically or physically (or both) one-half pixel in the horizontal axis or vertical axis (or both). Pixel Shift requires more than one CCD.

OK, but in 1 chip camera 3 color channel pixels are lot less aligned than in color shifted 3-chip camera.

Radek

In what way are the color channels shifted? I know how 3 chip cameras with and without pixel shift. Sorry, I have never in my life used a single chip camera so I don't know much about them. I never cared or had any desire to even look at a single chip camera until now. I still don't like the idea of a single chip but they seem to work much better today.

In 3 chip camera all color pixels align, with green channel shift, green pixels are shifted 1/2 pixel. In single chip camera are all pixels separated, no alignment of pixels for different colors can exist.

Radek

Hello,

I'm photographer, and i'm looking for a tutorial about "why in camcorder 3 Chips are the holly graal while in photography, even with very high end digital back the simple chip is the rule ?"

If anyone has a link pointing to such an explaination..

Thanks in advance

Short answer, three-chip camcorders are *no longer* the "Holy Grail" that they used to be. The reason that they *were* is because previously, single-chip camcorders used a complimentary color filter which was excellent for low noise. However, 3-CCD camcorders produce much better color than single-CCD cams with a complimentary (CMY) color filter. That's why they're so highly regarded compared to single-chip video camcorders, because of the difference in color accuracy.

The majority of digital still cameras are using primary (RGB) color filters which produce excellent color. That's how they can get away with using a single image sensor. These days, video is finally catching up with photo and more single-chip video camcorders are being made with primary color filters. A single-chip camcorder with an RGB color filter produces an image that is nearly as good as a thee-chip camcorder (perhaps even better if there is a big difference between image processors -- a newer 1-chip RGB might outperform an older 3-chip).

Hope this helps,

yes but how and why are the 3 color channels split and seperated on a single chip? Is it because of the filter? Do digital still cameras suffer from this same color seperation?

See the "How Color is Created" section about halfway down the page at this link:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1157576,00.asp

This is a good overview of digital still camera image sensor technology that begins here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,15465,00.asp

ok thanks for the info Chris.

So from what I understand it isn't so much that the three colors are not lined up but that the pixels for each color alternates and is then interpolated.

So in a way certain color details only really have information that is somewhat like 4:2:0. Although in this case there isn't a perfect 4 for luminace since that is also interpolated. I say 4:2:0 because first the colors alternate every other pixel. This gives us kind of a 4:2. Next blue and red pixels are only sampled every other line so that leaves us with the similar way 4:2:0 works.

So in terms of HDV then for color after using 4:2:0 compression there wouldn't be that much of a difference between a single chip and a 3 chip camera except for the fact that the luminace channel would be interpolated in the single chip camera. In the 3 chip camera you would get more color detail but every other pixel would be thrown out during compression. On top of that the compression would alternate chroma channels on every other line.

So even if these new single chip cameras have uncompressed output the image would be interpolated somewhat like 4:2:0 anyways?

Is this also why single chip camera with a Bayer filter are considered to have a loss of resolution since every single pixel is interpolated?

hello,

On the other hand, zdnet states :
------------
.... at that price level, it competes with three-chip models from Panasonic, such as the AG-DVC30, which produce much better color accuracy and dynamic range ....
------------
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/Sony_Ha...2.html?tag=tab

Of course it helps !
Thanks a lot Chris

There is a good reason why 3 CCD's are still preferable to 1 CCD cameras: light loss.

As you can see on the picture here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_prism ), the prism in a 3 CCD camera will split incoming light into blue, green and red. A single CDD uses a Bayer filter (or another compareable system) with a filter atached to each individual pixel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter ). Filters block light and thus a single CCD camera won't be as sensitive as 3 CCD one.

The reason why 3 CCD's aren't used in Digital Photography is fourfold: sensitivity isn't as important as it is in Digital Video, the single sensors are bigger and thus more sensitive by themselves, 3 CCD systems are impossible to package in a traditional SLR and the potential for mechanical misalignment issues between the sensors is bigger because of the higher amount of pixels required.

The sensitivity arguments needs an explanation. Photographers have been content to work with 100 and 200 ASA film for ages. The FX1 has been regarded as OK but not excellent concerning low light sensitivity. Well, this FX1 has been rated at about 350 ASA by some on this forum. The difference between photographers and videographers is that the photographer can fall back to very slow shutter speeds. He can also uses flashes quite easily while a videographer in a run-and-gun situation will only use extra light (f.i. on camera lights) as a last resort. This run-and-gun situation is exactly where low light sensitivity matters the most.

Release Date????
 

Does anyone knows the actual release date of this puppy???

Poor Manual Control
 

I guess this is OK for home users, but lack of manual aperture control surely drops any interest most pros have in this camera. This could have been a great 2nd camera for some situations, but not without full manual control.

All single CCD camcorders and digital camera's (except Foveon types) have spatially offsetted pixels. Green pixels shift techniques, though optically totally different are on the image reconstruction level a subset of the mozaik reconstruction algorihms: smart combinations of neighbouring pixels allow higher (luma)resolutions and less aliasing effects than what would be expected with the same amount of coinciding pixels.

Pete, this camera is clearly aimed that the consumer market. If they gave you full manual controls then a lot of prosumers and pros would choose this one over the FX1.

They know the HD1 suffers from the same problem, so they're not too worried about it...