1/3 v 1/4 inch chips... whats the difference

Chris Hurd · September 19th, 2002, 01:21 PM

It is not possible to retrofit a camera with newer CCD's at any place or time other than the manufacturer's initial point of assembly. In other words, the XL1S itself is already retrofitted with CCD's newer than the original XL1. But will it be done on an individual basis at a service facility, no. There's much more involved than just replacing the chips, and the cost would exceed the value of the camera.

Frank Granovski · September 24th, 2002, 04:28 AM

Let's look at it this way. In the beginning, miniDV cams had larger CCDs and less CCD pixels, for the most part. The cam's lux requirements were lower than today's cams and the resolution was lower. Now (for the most part) CCDs have shrunk, and their pixel counts have increased. The result? Higher resolution but higher lux requirements. Just take for example Panasonic's EZ1: 1/3" CCDs, low CCD pixels count = lower resolution but a lower lux requirement---and this cam was small! Now look at today's EZ50U: 1/6" CCDs and mega-pixeled. The result? Higher resolution but the lux sucks! It's just another one of those give and take situations. Okay, I'm off to bed---.

Ralph Keyser · September 25th, 2002, 12:55 PM

OK, I'm way out of my league, but the size of the CCD has to have something to do with Depth of Field, right? One of the huge headaches (for me) with video is getting those wonderful soft backgrounds with the razor sharp foreground that is so easy to do with film. I thought that the size of the image figured into the equation. That is, it's easier to get narrow DoF with 35mm than with 16mm, and the reason that video has such huge DoFs has to do with the little tiny chip sizes. Am I way confused here?

Barry Goyette · September 25th, 2002, 01:15 PM

Ralph

Every thing you said is correct (although there are a few DoF junkies around here that will quibble with true root cause of limited depth of field). Welcome to the league.

Barry

Jeff Donald · September 25th, 2002, 01:25 PM

Barry' correct (and by the way I'm a Dof junky, but I'm working my steps) . a very easy way to look at Dof is as follows:

Depth of Field (DOF) is dependent upon the following variations:
a. The focal length of the lens.

b. The diaphragm opening (effective aperture, not F-number).

c. The distance from the lens to the object that is focused on.

d. The distance from which the image is viewed.

e. The viewer's personal standard of the permissible degree of sharpness (or unsharpness).

Other variables remaining constant, it follows that:

a. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF.

b. The smaller the diaphragm opening, the greater the DOF.

c. The greater the distance to the object being focused on, the greater DOF.

d. The greater the distance from which the image is viewed, the great the "apparent" DOF.

The smaller chip size forces you to either change the focal length of you lens or change the distance to the object to keep the subject the same image size. The smaller chip has the effect of making the subject larger. You can make the subject smaller by using shorter focal lengths (increasing DoF) or increasing distance to the subject (increasing DoF). Like Barry says it all works out the same.

Jeff

Shaun Roemich · September 25th, 2002, 04:05 PM

In response to Ralph's post, as a Betacam SP, DIGI &SX, DVCam (D30, DSR200, & PD150), & DV shooter (VX1000, XL1 (eeech! sorry folks)...

you are absolutely correct when it come to your analogy of the ease with which you can achieve a very shallow depth of field with 35mm compared to 16mm film... it is VERY much the same with 1/3" chips vs. 2/3" chips... even with neutral density (internal & external) distance to subject, and every other trick the previous posters have brought up, there are sometimes that I just cannot under any circumstance get the background as out of focus as I would like when I am using a camera with 1/3" chips... I'm in the process of trying to educate my clients of this as well but a goodly number of them just don't understand...

In a perfectly controlled environment which is lit well and with a great amount of space at your disposal (which almost never happens in the real world), it would be somewhat easier, but I maintain that imaging device target size is one of the most crucial (if not THE most crucial) variable in the DoF debate/struggle...

Please understand as well that sometimes the benefits of a large DoF outweigh the drawbacks (I NEVER comeback with footage that the clients says "well... that looks a LITTLE soft on my broadcast monitor")

Good shooting!!!

September 19th, 2002, 01:21 PM	#16
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	It is not possible to retrofit a camera with newer CCD's at any place or time other than the manufacturer's initial point of assembly. In other words, the XL1S itself is already retrofitted with CCD's newer than the original XL1. But will it be done on an individual basis at a service facility, no. There's much more involved than just replacing the chips, and the cost would exceed the value of the camera. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 25th, 2002, 12:55 PM	#18
Ralph Keyser Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Posts: 287	Speaking of depth of field OK, I'm way out of my league, but the size of the CCD has to have something to do with Depth of Field, right? One of the huge headaches (for me) with video is getting those wonderful soft backgrounds with the razor sharp foreground that is so easy to do with film. I thought that the size of the image figured into the equation. That is, it's easier to get narrow DoF with 35mm than with 16mm, and the reason that video has such huge DoFs has to do with the little tiny chip sizes. Am I way confused here?

September 24th, 2002, 04:28 AM	#17
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Let's look at it this way. In the beginning, miniDV cams had larger CCDs and less CCD pixels, for the most part. The cam's lux requirements were lower than today's cams and the resolution was lower. Now (for the most part) CCDs have shrunk, and their pixel counts have increased. The result? Higher resolution but higher lux requirements. Just take for example Panasonic's EZ1: 1/3" CCDs, low CCD pixels count = lower resolution but a lower lux requirement---and this cam was small! Now look at today's EZ50U: 1/6" CCDs and mega-pixeled. The result? Higher resolution but the lux sucks! It's just another one of those give and take situations. Okay, I'm off to bed---.

September 25th, 2002, 01:15 PM	#19
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Ralph Every thing you said is correct (although there are a few DoF junkies around here that will quibble with true root cause of limited depth of field). Welcome to the league. Barry

September 25th, 2002, 01:25 PM	#20
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Barry' correct (and by the way I'm a Dof junky, but I'm working my steps) . a very easy way to look at Dof is as follows: Depth of Field (DOF) is dependent upon the following variations: a. The focal length of the lens. b. The diaphragm opening (effective aperture, not F-number). c. The distance from the lens to the object that is focused on. d. The distance from which the image is viewed. e. The viewer's personal standard of the permissible degree of sharpness (or unsharpness). Other variables remaining constant, it follows that: a. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the DOF. b. The smaller the diaphragm opening, the greater the DOF. c. The greater the distance to the object being focused on, the greater DOF. d. The greater the distance from which the image is viewed, the great the "apparent" DOF. The smaller chip size forces you to either change the focal length of you lens or change the distance to the object to keep the subject the same image size. The smaller chip has the effect of making the subject larger. You can make the subject smaller by using shorter focal lengths (increasing DoF) or increasing distance to the subject (increasing DoF). Like Barry says it all works out the same. Jeff

September 25th, 2002, 04:05 PM	#21
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	In response to Ralph's post, as a Betacam SP, DIGI &SX, DVCam (D30, DSR200, & PD150), & DV shooter (VX1000, XL1 (eeech! sorry folks)... you are absolutely correct when it come to your analogy of the ease with which you can achieve a very shallow depth of field with 35mm compared to 16mm film... it is VERY much the same with 1/3" chips vs. 2/3" chips... even with neutral density (internal & external) distance to subject, and every other trick the previous posters have brought up, there are sometimes that I just cannot under any circumstance get the background as out of focus as I would like when I am using a camera with 1/3" chips... I'm in the process of trying to educate my clients of this as well but a goodly number of them just don't understand... In a perfectly controlled environment which is lit well and with a great amount of space at your disposal (which almost never happens in the real world), it would be somewhat easier, but I maintain that imaging device target size is one of the most crucial (if not THE most crucial) variable in the DoF debate/struggle... Please understand as well that sometimes the benefits of a large DoF outweigh the drawbacks (I NEVER comeback with footage that the clients says "well... that looks a LITTLE soft on my broadcast monitor") Good shooting!!!