FX1/Z1U vs. $179 5mp digital camera at DVinfo.net

John M. Graham · November 8th, 2006, 07:18 PM

Hey guys, this one is directed to the technical brainiacs...

I don't understand how a $4500 professional camera has less resolution than $179 Nikon CoolPix?

I understand that the HD format only goes up to 1920x1080 (2mps), but why did Sony make the resolution of these "large" 1/3" chips 960x1080 when a cheapo digital camera with an almost microscopic image sensor scan the image at a full blown 5mps???

Would it really be so hard (or more costly) for Sony to give it's professional cameras with more resolution than a mini amatuer snap-shot camera? Why not just give the Z1U or FX1 chips that scan at 1920x1080? Or, why not give them chips that over-scan the format resolution? Shoot, give me an HD cam that scans at 5mp! Isn't that what the big broadcast betacams do? They scan the image at 800 TV lines or so even though the final image will be distributed/broadcasted at 480 lines?

Please, someone enlighten me!

Gints Klimanis · November 8th, 2006, 07:45 PM

These $179 cameras are unable to do 5MP resolution at 30 frames/second. There are some movie modes in these cameras but moving that amount of data requires a full blown computer that can't run in today's mobile package.

Video resolution is optimized for video. Smaller pixels are generally less sensitive to light for a particular sensor size and technology. So, resolution in excess will handicap a video camera.

Keep the complaints rolling. Just as the DSLR camera market is opening up to a lower price point, so should video technology. I would love to be able to use my Nikon AF lenses and auto-focus engine on a video camera with an APS-sized sensor.

Chris Barcellos · November 8th, 2006, 08:01 PM

Sony actually had a very nice set up for the VX2000 and PD 150. The three chip camera made an excellent 640 by 480 photo that was quite beatiful.

I am sure they could do similar in the newer cameras, but whats the point. If you want optimal Video, get a good video camera. IF you what optimal still photos, its a different process.

Mark Utley · November 8th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John M. Graham

why did Sony make the resolution of these "large" 1/3" chips 960x1080

That would compete with (and probably hurt) sales of Sony's higher-end cameras. Plus, I don't think they could possibly compress the video any more than they're already doing.

John M. Graham · November 8th, 2006, 10:08 PM

Good point about how the increased resolution would decrease light sensitivity... I forgot about that one...

And I really didn't think about what type of computer hardware would be needed to process 5MP 24, 30, or 60 times a second... hmmm...

Well, OK then, I've been enlightened! Thanks!

Gints Klimanis · November 9th, 2006, 01:43 AM

And it's just getting worse. Manufacturers find it easy to sell more megapixels. We can all look forward to 12 megapixel files loaded with noise. Apparently, it's too difficult to educate consumers that better glass and lower noise are better than more megapixels. Why ? Does it have to do with a positive large number ?

Compacts megapixel race not over
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...arp12mpccd.asp

Just when we had hoped that the megapixel race was over for compact cameras Sharp has gone and announced a twelve megapixel 1/1.7" sensor. Lets face it the latest batch of ten megapixel compacts are nothing to get excited about, seven was enough in any compact, it's pretty sad to see another two million photosites crammed into the same space. A smaller photosite (in this case just 1.88 microns) means less sensitivity, higher noise (generally) and an even higher requirement on the lens optics (virtually no current compact has what we'd call a great lens). So expect to see this sensor in a new PMA compact camera with the same 3x zoom lens and ISO 3200.

November 8th, 2006, 07:18 PM	#1
John M. Graham Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 83	FX1/Z1U vs. $179 5mp digital camera Hey guys, this one is directed to the technical brainiacs... I don't understand how a $4500 professional camera has less resolution than $179 Nikon CoolPix? I understand that the HD format only goes up to 1920x1080 (2mps), but why did Sony make the resolution of these "large" 1/3" chips 960x1080 when a cheapo digital camera with an almost microscopic image sensor scan the image at a full blown 5mps??? Would it really be so hard (or more costly) for Sony to give it's professional cameras with more resolution than a mini amatuer snap-shot camera? Why not just give the Z1U or FX1 chips that scan at 1920x1080? Or, why not give them chips that over-scan the format resolution? Shoot, give me an HD cam that scans at 5mp! Isn't that what the big broadcast betacams do? They scan the image at 800 TV lines or so even though the final image will be distributed/broadcasted at 480 lines? Please, someone enlighten me!

November 8th, 2006, 08:01 PM	#3
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Sony actually had a very nice set up for the VX2000 and PD 150. The three chip camera made an excellent 640 by 480 photo that was quite beatiful. I am sure they could do similar in the newer cameras, but whats the point. If you want optimal Video, get a good video camera. IF you what optimal still photos, its a different process. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

November 8th, 2006, 07:45 PM	#2
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	These $179 cameras are unable to do 5MP resolution at 30 frames/second. There are some movie modes in these cameras but moving that amount of data requires a full blown computer that can't run in today's mobile package. Video resolution is optimized for video. Smaller pixels are generally less sensitive to light for a particular sensor size and technology. So, resolution in excess will handicap a video camera. Keep the complaints rolling. Just as the DSLR camera market is opening up to a lower price point, so should video technology. I would love to be able to use my Nikon AF lenses and auto-focus engine on a video camera with an APS-sized sensor.

November 8th, 2006, 10:08 PM	#5
John M. Graham Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fort Worth, Texas Posts: 83	Good point about how the increased resolution would decrease light sensitivity... I forgot about that one... And I really didn't think about what type of computer hardware would be needed to process 5MP 24, 30, or 60 times a second... hmmm... Well, OK then, I've been enlightened! Thanks!

November 9th, 2006, 01:43 AM	#6
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	And it's just getting worse. Manufacturers find it easy to sell more megapixels. We can all look forward to 12 megapixel files loaded with noise. Apparently, it's too difficult to educate consumers that better glass and lower noise are better than more megapixels. Why ? Does it have to do with a positive large number ? Compacts megapixel race not over http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...arp12mpccd.asp Just when we had hoped that the megapixel race was over for compact cameras Sharp has gone and announced a twelve megapixel 1/1.7" sensor. Lets face it the latest batch of ten megapixel compacts are nothing to get excited about, seven was enough in any compact, it's pretty sad to see another two million photosites crammed into the same space. A smaller photosite (in this case just 1.88 microns) means less sensitivity, higher noise (generally) and an even higher requirement on the lens optics (virtually no current compact has what we'd call a great lens). So expect to see this sensor in a new PMA compact camera with the same 3x zoom lens and ISO 3200.