3CCD or not 3CCD?

[jose 0]

Ok, so I thought that the new Sony 330 was a 3CCD video capture, but I cant find that written anywhere. Now I cant even find the damn thing for sale. It has been replaced with the pc-350 that states that it has

1/3" 3310K Pixel Advanced HAD™ CCD resolution.

Ok, what the hell does that mean people. Yeah, I understand that it has a 1/3 CCD chip, but how does it render to 3CCD resolution...??!?!?! Is this just a processing gimmick that isnt worth the money? As in, only can see the difference on an ossiciliscope? Sp?

Finally, how does this differ from lets say, a VX-2100?

[sdctlc 0]

Sony DCR-HC1000 3 CCD Digital Camcorder

Format Mini DV
CCD 3x 1/4.7" Mega-Pixel CCD -1070k Pixels per CCD
Video Actual Pixels 690k
Still Actual Pixels 1,000k
Advanced HAD CCD Technolog

B & H On line has it noted at $1499.95

Forgot to add it notes 530 lines of horizontal resolution

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[IvanPeters 0]

Quote

Ok, what the hell does that mean people.

A standard digital NTSC picture is 720 x 486 pixels. That's roughly 340K pixels. That doesn't change no matter how many pixels your CCD has. The reason for having more pixels in the CCD is to better calculate the colour of the video pixels.

A video pixel has to try to represent the average colour of the area it covers. This is hard for a single CCD pixel to do. Having the information from 6 actual pixels to calculate the video pixel from makes the result better.

The PC330 and PC350 are both single CCD cameras. They are both 3 Megapixel CCD's - although only 2 million of those pixels are used for video. The rest are only used when taking stills.

A 3 CCD camera calculates the colour differently. The lens splits the incoming light into it's red, green and blue components and directs each colour to it's own CCD. The CCD now has a less complicated job to do. It just needs to determine the brightness As a result, you don't need so many pixels. The VX2100 has only 380K pixels per CCD.

The 3 CCD method has always produced superior results (allegedly - I've never seen them). As the number of pixels on single CCD's gets bigger the quality gap is reducing.

The other factor that comes into play is the CCD size. The general idea is that the bigger the CCD, the more light it can capture and the better the image. The VX2100 has 3 0.33 inch CCD's. The PC350 has one. So the VX2100 has 3 times the light capturing ability which also contributes to better images.

That, at least, is my understanding of how things work.

Ivan

[EricTheRed 0]

Pretty much on target.

on
"The PC330 and PC350 are both single CCD cameras. They are both 3 Megapixel CCD's - although only 2 million of those pixels are used for video. The rest are only used when taking stills."

The rest of the pixels left out of the video are used for image stabilization.

The differences in image quality between 3CCD and 1CCD are most apparent in poor light situations.

It's been covered before but some 3CCD cameras have problems dealing with vibration.

illegible usually

[jose 0]

Ok, so whats the deal with Sony touting that it is the equivalent to a 3 CCD chip? The people that have the 330 or the newer 350 say that the video is much better than lets say, the 120.

Basically what I am trying to decide if I should go with the 330 or a VX style camera. Is the resolution worth the massive differnce is cash? Also would have to get a new helmet for the VX.

Anyone here fly any of the VX's?

[PhreeZone 15]

What is your end goal for the video? Broadcast or home editing?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[AndyMan 7]

The difference between a 3CCD and a single chip camera is not resolution - both output video at exactly the same resoltuion.

The difference is the clarity of colors. A 3 CCD camera will produce much more vibrant colors. A sunset taken with a VX2000 will not compare at all to that taken with a PCXXX.

Is it worth it? Depends. Are you rich? How much do you care about the quality of your work? Is selling to TV or "big media" a realistic opportunity?

Myself, I do have a VX2000 on my long term shopping list. If I ever find I'm rich, I'll get one then, just for the hell of it. :)

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[jose 0]

End goal is home and DZ year end video for sales editing. Either way, I am the kind of guy that likes the best I can get my hands on, even I cant use it to its full potential. If I need it, at least its there.

[IvanPeters 0]

Quote

Ok, so whats the deal with Sony touting that it is the equivalent to a 3 CCD chip? The people that have the 330 or the newer 350 say that the video is much better than lets say, the 120.

The resolution of 3 CCD systems hasn't changed much because it hasn't needed to. Single CCD systems are improving their resolution all the time. So they are getting ever closer in quality.

I've not seen a 3 CCD camera to make a comparison but, to justify the price difference I would assume it still creates a superior image in a wider range of conditions. The 3 CCD system still has 3 times the light capturing area which I would expect to be particularly useful in low light conditions.

Lighting conditions at 12,000 ft are generally pretty good. So you might question the value of that extra capability for the type of conditions you will generally be filming in. EricTheRed noted that some 3 CCD cameras have problems with vibration. The VX2100 uses a physical image stabilization system instead of the digital system used in the 1 CCD cameras. I believe this is supposed to be better but I have no experience.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Lighting conditions at 12,000 ft are generally pretty good. So you might question the value of that extra capability for the type of conditions you will generally be filming in. EricTheRed noted that some 3 CCD cameras have problems with vibration. The VX2100 uses a physical image stabilization system instead of the digital system used in the 1 CCD cameras. I believe this is supposed to be better but I have no experience.

Actually some of the physical systems have the worst performance in the vibration ranges created by freefall. This is from anecdotal information but I have heard several issues with optical image stabilization vs electronic. The 330's extra pixels give the image processor a lot of room to work with so the stabilzation is pretty good.

So far as color, if the light is good it produces VERY nice images. It's less effective in low light, where the 3CCD would be better.

It's really about how much light hits each individual pixel and how many pixels total there are.

Here's a good light and poor light pic from my 330

illegible usually