OK, is there a A/B compare of HD1 vs 3chip DV?

[Troy Lamont]

The JVC wins this contest and doesn't need to be modified to do so.

Amen to that brother! :)

Troy

[Anhar Miah]

In terms of VIDEO a 3CCD system setup will be superior to a 1CCD chip in terms of colour, why beacuse a photosite (pixel) is a transducer it converts the photon that hits it to a small charge, the more the photons the larger the charge, anyway like many transducers the response may not be linear it may be some other non-linear response curve...
ok ok cutting to the chase the pixel represents an aprroxmimate luminance level, this is all very fine if you want to record black and white images but what about the colout? well back in the old days (near the begining of TV) one method was to spin a transparent mult-coloured wheel that had different coloured segments (red, green, blue) in front of the camera lens then on the TV sets it too would have the same wheel and buy spinning the wheel at the same phase (ie when the segment say was red past the camera lens at the same moment in time the wheel in form of the TV would also be red) this was a very crude method NOW back to the present day when using a 1CCD chip in order to get colour information you have to mask/filter off some of the pixels or photosites and you guys know the rest... now this method means that the colour information is only an aprroximation, but WAIT engineerings came up with a much better solution way not split the light into its primary colours and record them individually and thus avoid all the filtering and bayer matrix and pixel shifting issue all together.

Now you get some people who say " my digital camera can make images that are like waaay superior to any video camera and ITS a 1CCD" thats because its DESIGNED to take STILL images. It has many many more pixels then any video cameras so even after considering that not all of these pixels are used effectively (becasue you have to filter/mask some of the pixels to derive colour information) the large pixel count compensates for that, thats the reason why you need such high megapixel count to get good images. And since you are not demanding video the DSP has TIME to gather enough information to make a good image.

Anyway if you dont believe me then why cant a digital camera be used to make video and vise versa, i.e try making a video from a digital still and you will see that it is by now way at any level to compete with even an old analouge camcorder.

And what if you had a digital still camera that had 3CCD's it would diffinately blow away all these single chip digital still cameras(now dont give me all this stuff about using a 3CCD camcorder to take a digital still, because a video camera is designed for VIDEO and a still camera is desgined for a STILL image you get it now)

To conlude:

a 3CCD system is better than a 1CCD sytem period.
Comparing a digital still is a null issue because they are designed for a different purpose(for stills) [hint: thats why they suck when it comes to taking videos]

one last comment about the whole dvx vx hd1

universal law: grabage in garbage out

therefor even if the JVC has a higher resolution format you can not say that it has a superior lens than the DVX,
secondly in terms of colour the dvx has 3CCDs, the JVC may be recording (or trying to) a higer resolution but it has to sacriface a lot of pixels to achieve colour samples, as a result you are goinging to be losing resolution (add the fact you've got a poor lens) then to top if all of HD needs a higer bandwidth and mpeg2 just doesn't cut the musturd beacuse for gods sake during acqasition stage you want to reatin as much data as possible and using mpeg is a lossy process you are just throwing buckets of data away.

(hmm interesting note, if 1CCD was soo good why does CiniAlta use three?)

the JVC cam is like on of those cheapo digtal still cameras that you see advertised in newspapers you the one that are made by some cheapo company that claim to be 4megapixel at only £100 or something like that, then after you buy one and take a picture and compare it with like a 4meagpixel sony or say Kodak you realise how much the Sony/Kodak is superior. Becasue the cheapo camera is not actually 4meagpixel (its hardware interpolated) and the lens is poor quality it may not even have CCDs (most likely cmos).

So When JVC said it had a HD cam at a consumer price, lots of silly people got excited and thought that they had just brought a ciniAlta ...

Look i'm all for HD i would love to have HD but even HD is being replaced takea look at whats happing with Dalsa.

i'm tried of typing.

[Craig Jones]

See if I've summarized Anhar's points correctly:

- 3CCD is better than 1CCD because 3CCD's are better.
- Still imager design is irrelevant because still imagers aren't designed for video.
- Video cameras can't take good stills and still cameras can't take good video.
- People who think still and video technologies are related are fools.
- JVC video is garbage.
- JVC's mpeg2 compression cannot possibly be good, therefore it is garbage.
- JVC's lens in not superior to the DVX, therefore it is poor.
- JVC sacrifices a lot of pixels and its lens is poor.
- DVX's color must be better because it's 3CCD.
- 1CCD can't be good because CineAlta uses 3.
- The JVC doesn't do what it advertises, doesn't have the claimed resolution, and probably doesn't have a real CCD in addition to its tiny lens.


I can see that you've done a thorough objective analysis and have a firm technical grasp of the issues. That the JVC is such a "piece..." doesn't reflect well on the DVX since it was totally outclassed in this comparison.

Just a few interesting facts for you:


- 3CCD cameras may eliminate the Bayer pattern, but not the color filtering. The prism has problems of its own.
- Both cameras here subsample chroma. The JVC format offers nearly as much chroma bandwidth as the DVX has luma bandwidth!
- The Nikon D2h processes in excess of 32Mpixels/second. The DVX does at most 10Mp/s per CCD and the JVC does 30Mp/s. Still cameras have no problem keeping up with video speeds.
- Curious that the DVX at its pixel rates can't do HD. So much for the superiority of 3CCD.
- There are digital video systems with pixel counts in the high MP range.
- The Nikon D100 uses an interline transfer CCD, and architecture DESIGNED for video cameras.
- The optics of video and still cameras work the same way.
- There are very few aspects of imager design that restrict their use to still or video.
- No one who bought a JVC thought they got a CineAlta.

Everything you posted, Anhar, is based on prejudice and heresay. Old prejudices die hard. I suggest you read JVC's discussion on it's 1CCD imager, only this time with an open mind.

[Heath McKnight]

Everyone,

Let's stay polite here; we strive to keep this intelligent, informative, and a fun debate.

Just a friendly reminder.

heath

[Jeff Donald]

- The optics of video and still cameras work the same way.

Craig, I agree with most of your major points, but I think you need to add still digital cameras. Optics designed for film still cameras may show anomalies when used on digital still cameras.

[Craig Jones]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Craig, I agree with most of your major points, but I think you need to add still digital cameras. Optics designed for film still cameras may show anomalies when used on digital still cameras. -->>>

You are right. I just meant the optical principles don't change. The light doesn't know whether it's being recorded in full motion or still!

[Jeff Donald]

Thanks for the claification.

[Ken Hodson]

Anhar - OK, we all get your point.
3CCD still beter than 1CCD still.
3CCD video better than 1CCD video.


Unfortunately it isn't that simple.
See, what is being compared here is DV format to HDV format:
DV compression to mpeg2ts compression, 480p to 720p, 16x9 to 4:3. 1chip vs 3 chip.
All of these factors add up to the final image.
Out of all of the deficientcies this camera has, colour is not one of them. As well neither is resolution, which you say, should be gobbled up by the lack of 3CCD's.
Many, and my self included, agree that the colour from the HD10 is more real world then the DVX100's. Add this to the 720p resolution and you have a hyper realistic image.

I would also like to point out that not all CCD's are equal. There are some 1CCD DV format cams that have very comparable or better picture than some 3 CCD cams. And out of all cam makers JVC is known to be one of the best for 1chip designs.

Ken

[Les Dit]

Just one point on the optics issue:
One of the biggest jokes in the science of optics is selling video camera people lenses than have resolutions 5X what is needed for the format. It is pretty easy to make a lens that does a good job at 360 line pairs of resolution. But the Gucci effect really sells.
Wow, by camera has an XYZ lens, hey that means I'll be able to take better video with it! Rubbish!

The lens is not going to make much difference at 720 across.
Look at it this way, a $10 disposable camera with a plastic lens gets you way more resolution then *any* DV camera can record.

Yes, there are issues with how the focus ring works ( servo vs. manual ) and whatnot, but you don't need Gucci brand names with some kind of voo doo to make that work. Besides, the typical big names that Jap. cam makes use for 'lens endorsements' aren't very good at motor controlled lenses anyway. It's not there bag.
-Les

[Jeff Donald]

Look at it this way, a $10 disposable camera with a plastic lens gets you way more resolution then *any* DV camera can record.

There's more to quality optics than resolution. Lens designers also consider contrast, sharpness, color saturation, and control of flare and other optical defects.

Are you saying that the MTF of the plastic lens on the disposable lens is higher than most video lenses? Reading your post one might get that impression.

[Les Dit]

That's kinda what I'm saying, the MTF on the $1 lens is more than enough to support a web cam image ( DV ).
Notice that I said "can record" above.
Sure, lens design is more than sharpness, and they are interrelated in a strong way. But consider that in video cams, people ( including myself ) use filters ( Tiffen ultra contrast, black fog, whatever ) for reducing the high contrast, since the film plane can't take the contrast anyway.
The Tiffen Ultracontrast is basically a dirty lens element.

-Les

[Don Berube]

>>>>>>>>The JVC wins this contest and doesn't need to be modified to do so.

- Was just wondering if anyone has addressed how the HD10 renders vertical lines. I have yet to see the camera draw any vertical line as a straight vertical line. Everytime I have seen a live demo of the cam, vertical lines are never straight - they are drawn out very squigly, at times looking almost like a vertical high frequency sine wave or even a slalom ski course. Anyone notice this at all?

Also, has anyone been able to tame the "star-cross filter effect" anamoly often seen with small hot spots in the frame?

Not to start a war or a negative discussion here, but I haven't seen these things happen at all with the DVX100. I pointed this out to a DP friend of mine at the DV Expo and his response was "Thank you, I'm glad that I am not the only one who's seeing these things!"

If these side-effects are to be expected with HDV, then I would much rather shoot with a 'full-on' DVCPRO50 or 'DVCPRO100' camera with a sweet lens. Hopefully, this will improve with future HDV camera models?

>>>>>>>> The lens is not going to make much difference at 720 across.

- This is incorrect. We have seen repeatedly that increasing the resolving power and rectilinear response of the glass does have a noticeable effect - such as raising the degree of sharpness in a very measurable, tangible way and also decreasing chromatic aberrations. Photographers will agree that "it is all in the glass".

- don

[Jeff Donald]

I think you're greatly mistaken, Les. When tests have been done on different lenses mounted on an XL1s different lenses have made a profound difference in image quality. The tests (both objective and subjective) done by American Cinematographer several years ago bare this out.

My own personal shooting experiences using different lenses confirm this. Using various cameras, 2/3 inch chip and 1/3 inch chip, show vastly different quality images with different lenses.

Filters are one way of controlling contrast, as well as exposure and lighting techniques. But not all video users are looking to reduce image quality with various so-called enhancing filters. I think you need to take this into account in your sweeping generalizations related to DV and optical performance.

[Graeme Nattress]

As for lenses, the requirements for a lens for a full HD camera (I'm talking the Panavision ones here, as they're the only ones I've used and know about) are greater than that of a 35mm camera. That's why Panavision came up with a whole new series of lenses for their HD cameras, because their 35mm lenses were not good enough...

I would then have to say that whatever lens you have on a DV camera, you'd need a better one on a 720p camera to do any justice to the resolution. Perhaps that's why the HD1 always has the sharpness set too high....

Graeme

[Craig Jones]

Is their any objective basis for concluding that the JVC lens is inadequate?

Sharpness is one the areas that the two JVC differ. I personally believe that the shortcomings of the JVC are related to its shortage of pixel pounding DSP power. We know that it was a great challenge for JVC to put enough processing power into that size/weight/cost/power package at all. I would attribute the lack of user control and image quality issues to that fact rather than to the type of imager and lens though it's just speculation on my part.

I believe the simplest explanations are usually the right ones. With the JVC we have optics and an imager that aren't really that different, but they are coupled to a massive computer and compressor by DV standards. My wishlist for improvements would be double the processing power and improvements in manual control before a better lens and imager. That's not to say that lens and imager improvements wouldn't make a difference, of course, but I bet there's image quality left on the table simply due to DSP limitations.