This content has been marked as final. Show 23 replies
Which replacement for the Z1?
I don't think sensor type plays much in video quality. You are also
comparing apples and oranges. You should be comparing 1 CCD cameras verses
3CCD cameras. The type of sensor I don't think makes a hooey.
As for 3CCD verses 1CCD. 3 is not always better when doing the research for
my camcorder (SD one, not HD) I saw samples from several 3 CCD cameras that
weren't as good as some of the 1 CCD ones. I think you have to get up in to
multi-thousand cameras before you will see a major differnce. I think the
quality of the sensors plays more than how many and what type.
"As for 3CCD verses 1CCD. 3 is not always better"
Sorry, I have to disagree with that.
>I saw samples from several 3 CCD cameras that weren't as good as some of the 1 CCD ones.
I find that very hard to believe of modern cameras. What models were you looking at?
<Phil_Griffith@adobeforums.com> wrote in message <br />news:email@example.comNXanI...<br />> "As for 3CCD verses 1CCD. 3 is not always better"<br />><br />> Sorry, I have to disagree with that.<br /><br />You can disagree all you want. The fact is the video from my HC96 was better <br />than the 3CCD Panasonic I was also considering. Less noise and more detail. <br />Of course this like so many other things is subjective and is a personal <br />thing. But, all that means is neither of us is wrong and it is always wise <br />to see test footage from any camcorder before you buy it so you can make <br />sure the quality is what you want.<br /><br />Robert
<Jim_Simon@adobeforums.com> wrote in message <br />news:firstname.lastname@example.orgNXanI...<br />><br />><br />> I saw samples from several 3 CCD cameras that weren't as good as some<br />> of the 1 CCD ones.<br />><br />><br />><br />><br />> I find that very hard to believe of modern cameras. What models were you <br />> looking at?<br /><br />HC96 and the other was a Panasonic. I don't remember the model number. The <br />HC96 is single CCD the Panasonic was a 3 but at the lower end of the price <br />scale. The 96 had more detail and less noise.<br /><br />Robert
**Warning: Off Topic**
>Ignorance really is bliss, just look how happy President Bush is.
Hmmm. From recent video clips airing on any of several news shows, he doesn't seem all that happy to me. Maybe he's not as ignorant as your statement implies. :)
Quote of the day (directed into empty space and at no one in particular):
"If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have one dollar."
There must be a reason why there are no single chip professional cameras, only 3 chip cameras in the pro arena. Could it have to do with light sensitivity or color rendition? Absolutely.
As an analogy, consider a cordless drill running on a 6V battery, could it deliver the same stamina and power as a 18V (3x6V) battery? Could it drill the same diameter in concrete or steel?
I think the "unfairness" in Robert's test was the Sony uses a full 1/3" CCD (which is the norm for prosumer cameras but very unusual for consumer models), whereas the Panasonic uses 1/6" CCDs. In this case, I guess I can believe 1 might be better than 3.
But when all else is equal, I think 3 will always beat 1.
I would not worry if the camera had CCD's or CMOS chips.
As long as you have a camera with 3 CCD's.
I'm talking about the V1 vs the Z1/G1...
and about the new 3 CMOS camera (XDCAM EX) which will replace the Z1:
Camera Video Forum (French and English)
And soon Sony will release a new version of the Z1 which is also a 3 CMOS camera.
My questions is whether one should rush to get a 3 CCD while supplies last.
> My questions is whether one should rush to get a 3 CCD while supplies last.
I would not worry to be honest. Rather make sure whatever chips they use that they are true 1920 x 1080 and NOT pixel shifted. Look at the other features on offer like the lens, ease of use, build quality, other features like variable frame rate, progressive 24p, the qaulity of the XLR sound and so on... oh and is it HDV or HD. Pointless buying an awesome HDV camera in my opinion.
Look at the cost of the camera and see if you get value for money.
b The EX1 is NOT a replacement of the Z1!
It is an extension of the XDCAM line, just like the 355 is. The title in the link you provided is very misleading.
The EX1 beats the image quality of the Z1/V1/XL-H1 and the HVX200 by miles. The difference is blatantly obvious.
So don't rush out to get a 3CCD camera.
So I suppose the EX1 is the way to go.
It certainly looks that way. I'm looking forward to seeing the first reviews of the final camera. But the pre-production review I saw was clear about one thing. It is absolutely stunning at that price range.
Here is a link to that review: http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=171
Pity it is still MPEG... But the move to Fujinon lenses is nice.
"The EX1 beats the image quality of the Z1/V1/XL-H1 and the HVX200 by miles."
Have you compared these side by side, particularly the HVX and EX1?
I haven't seen the EX1 yet and am interested in it. I am not convinced that even 35Mb mpeg compression is better/worse than the pixel shifted HVX route with much less compression. I am looking forward to trying it out. Hoping to purchase before too long and trying to decide how long to wait. There's new Panasonic talk for spring.
I think the quality difference noted between the EX and the HVX was due to the imaging sensors more than the codec used. The author of that article listed his test shots, and none of them sounded particularly taxing on the MPEG encoders.
One thing he did mention was that the HVX is better in low light, specifically because of the larger pixels on the HVXs chips. That's pretty key for wedding work.
The feedback you have been offered on the comparison are dead on.
In a properly operating camera using 3 1/3 CCD's [Charged Coupled Devices] compared to a camera using only one CCD is night and day. If you are not seeing that then something is very wrong!
As to the comparison of a camera with 3-1/3 CCD's and a camera with a single CMOS [Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor], there are several parameters to consider but there is again no doubt that the 3 CCD camera will have far less noise in very low light conditions. The manufacturing cost of a single CMOS based camera is also less. I am sure that Sony is somewhat inclined toward price in the V1 and Z1 models.
Here is a comparison of the EX and HVX:
The site is in German (and the pre-release EX tested had exposure problems) and I can't vouch for the methodology, but it appears as though the EX wins in low light. (Try Google translation for an approximation of English).
As for mpeg-2 (the EX1 uses an mpeg-4 wrapper), the mpeg-2 spec applies to decoding only, not encoding, so this is not your mother's codec. It has steadily improved over the years.
As to usability of mpeg-2 within Premiere, the following quote in Digital Content Producer magazine has me puzzled "Premiere Pro 2 reportedly already handles EX1's MP4 files with aplomb - drop 'n' drag style...". Could this be an accurate statement? I was thinking Cineform would be required.
>it appears as though the EX wins in low light.
The English article Harm linked to said just the opposite.
>the mpeg-2 spec applies to decoding only, not encoding
I don't even know what that means.
>The English article Harm linked to said just the opposite.
An A/B picture comparison is worth a thousand words x2 :) Of course, we won't really know until the unit actually ships.
>I don't even know what that means.
The decoding part of the mpeg-2 spec is engraved in stone. However, how it is encoded can be constantly improved upon. The EX1 implements a "new and improved" encoding algorithm, resulting in fewer artifacts at a given data rate. Or so they say...
Ahh. Makes more sense now.