I have been looking for a new camcorder; I quite like the sony HC90
which strongly features 'true widescreen' as its major selling feature
(to me), but I have since found out that the new 3ccd panasonic
cameras may be cheaper. My question is simple (!) Do the new 3ccd
panasonic cameras offer a real increase in quality over single ccd,
and if so what is the real problem with not having true widescreen.

LHW wrote:
I have been looking for a new camcorder; I quite like the sony HC90
which strongly features 'true widescreen' as its major selling feature
(to me), but I have since found out that the new 3ccd panasonic
cameras may be cheaper. My question is simple (!) Do the new 3ccd
panasonic cameras offer a real increase in quality over single ccd,
and if so what is the real problem with not having true widescreen.

3 Chips and true widescreen are essentially two issues but linked by the
fact that you are more likely to find true widescreen in a camera that
has 3 chips. If that makes sense!?

To answer your first question 3 chips will significantly increase
picture quality over a single chip camera using comparable lenses and
media.

Manufacturers use a number of methods to create widescreen images with
their 4:3 chips. The easiest way is to use all of the chip in 4:3 mode,
thus giving you decent picture resolution in both directions, but to
then use the middle portion of the chip for 16:9 shooting. This
significantly reduces the vertical resolution of the picture when you
shoot 16:9.

An example would be the Sony PD150. A stock camera in the early days of
'video diary' type programming and the both the BBC and ITV will
broadcast 4:3 material shot on it. However neither of them will
broadcast 16:9 material from a PD150 due to the drop in vertical resolution.

The second method manufacturers use is to create a chip that is big
enough for full resolution images at 16:9 and then use the middle bit of
it for shooting 4:3. This means that in both aspect ratios you get full
horizontal and vertical resolution. The downside is that they have to
make a bigger chip, the cost of which they pass on to you.

An example of this solution is the Sony PDX10. This camera actually has
a chip larger* than is neccessary for shooting 16:9. At full stretch
it'll let you take a 1 megapixel still. A slightly smaller area of the
chip is used to film in 16:9, and a smaller area still is used for 4:3.
One of the interesting side effects is that when you shoot in 16:9 you
actually get a wider angle of view.

By the way I don't work for Sony!

Essentially how many chips a camera has, and how the camera acquires a
16:9 image is related very closely to cost, and how much you are
prepared to spend depends very much on how important image quality is to
you and your audience.

No-one in your family will tut at your edit of their wedding video
because the vertical resolution is less than optimum. They won't notice,
they won't care.

If you're going to run to the expense of a 3 chip camera though you
really should make sure it's one that'll handle 16:9 properly as the
main jump in cost really comes with the addition of 2 chips.







*when I say larger i mean on a pixel by pixel basis and not necessarily
the actual physical size!

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:12:20 +0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

An example of this solution is the Sony PDX10. This camera actually has
a chip larger* than is neccessary for shooting 16:9. At full stretch
it'll let you take a 1 megapixel still. A slightly smaller area of the
chip is used to film in 16:9, and a smaller area still is used for 4:3.
One of the interesting side effects is that when you shoot in 16:9 you
actually get a wider angle of view.

I have posted this link before but it does illustrate well how the PDX10p works

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages...dx10p-16x9.htm


Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.oldfart.tv - have your say about the state of UK Television

"LHW" wrote in message
m...
I have been looking for a new camcorder; I quite like the sony HC90
which strongly features 'true widescreen' as its major selling feature
(to me), but I have since found out that the new 3ccd panasonic
cameras may be cheaper. My question is simple (!) Do the new 3ccd
panasonic cameras offer a real increase in quality over single ccd,
and if so what is the real problem with not having true widescreen.

Read in one of the reviews of the camera that it has poor low light
performance which was put down to the Panasonic having 3 chips.

Stuart McKears wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:12:20 +0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

An example of this solution is the Sony PDX10. This camera actually has
a chip larger* than is neccessary for shooting 16:9. At full stretch
it'll let you take a 1 megapixel still. A slightly smaller area of the
chip is used to film in 16:9, and a smaller area still is used for 4:3.
One of the interesting side effects is that when you shoot in 16:9 you
actually get a wider angle of view.

I have posted this link before but it does illustrate well how the PDX10p works

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages...dx10p-16x9.htm


Stuart

www.mckears.com
www.oldfart.tv - have your say about the state of UK Television


Thanks for the information so far. This then leads me to the question
of How the new panasonic 3ccd cameras (150, 250,400) manage their
widescreen mode. Does anybody know ?

informer wrote:
"LHW" wrote in message
m...

I have been looking for a new camcorder; I quite like the sony HC90
which strongly features 'true widescreen' as its major selling feature
(to me), but I have since found out that the new 3ccd panasonic
cameras may be cheaper. My question is simple (!) Do the new 3ccd
panasonic cameras offer a real increase in quality over single ccd,
and if so what is the real problem with not having true widescreen.


Read in one of the reviews of the camera that it has poor low light
performance which was put down to the Panasonic having 3 chips.



I don't know that having 3 chips would cause it to function worse in low
light. That's more likely to be down to bad design, or a bad choice for
the 3 chips.

Personally I wouldn't go for a Panasonic camera. Sony or Ikegami for
Broadcast works, Sony or JVC for Semi-Pro. The Canon XL range is nice to
but hugely overpriced.

"Rich" wrote


Personally I wouldn't go for a Panasonic camera. Sony or Ikegami for
Broadcast works, Sony or JVC for Semi-Pro. The Canon XL range is nice to
but hugely overpriced.

Can't see why anyone would want to buy a non true wide screen camcorder
seeing that most TV's are now widescreen.