Possibly the GS200/400/DV953 Killer??

Laurence Spiegel · May 12th, 2004, 09:24 PM

The larger ccd has 66% more area, since it's the ratio of the ccd's areas ( .212^2 / .166^2 ) that we want to figure.

Which makes me ask: Don't the mfrs read these boards? 1/3 or 1/2 an inch is hardly a massive chip, even with allowance for the larger components around them. Having ONE model in a consumer line with such a chip should pull in sales for whoever makes it. It seems marketing at cam mfrs is more concerned about cannibalizing a very small % of their pro sales rather than pulling in many more buyers from other brands. Much like how GM was years ago. Even enabling the unused IR capability and converting it to B&W is worth something.
This is frustrating. I simply want to record video in ordinary, not staged settings - exactly the purpose of consumer video. Analog cameras of 10 years ago could do this. In my industry, a business will jump to fill a gap in the market. Here it looks like they see a need... and walk away. What's up?
/end rant

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : 1/4.7" = .212"
1/6" = .166"

I don't see a big difference in size.
-->>>

Not big but considerable. 28% percent more.

At least a step in the right direction, instead of going down to 1/8".

Carlos

Frank Granovski · May 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM

This is why I'm hanging on to my 1/3" and 1/4" CCD'd cams, and no one's going to talk me out of it. :-))

.33" verses .25" verses .212" verses .166" - and the more pixels there are's the smaller they are's. :-))

Gints Klimanis · May 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM

>Is that a DV cam or a MPEG2 cam? If it's a MPEG2 cam it won't kill anything.

Wouldn't MPEG2 at 25 MBits a second beat DV at the same data
rate, both with the same frame size?

Frank Granovski · May 12th, 2004, 10:19 PM

We all know about MPEG2's higher compression and lower playback resolution. :-))

Tom E Young · May 15th, 2004, 05:15 PM

gs400 is dv video camcorder from I read what George said in post.

Frank Granovski · May 17th, 2004, 01:46 AM

Yes, according to those specs, but Pana e-mailed saying there's most likely going to be surprises.

Patricia Kim · May 17th, 2004, 04:24 AM

So Pana indicated surprises after you told them about the specs posted on Guy's site?

Frank Granovski · May 17th, 2004, 04:28 AM

No, before. I posted this on another thread. Wait, how did you know I e-mailed Pana about those specs? Never mind, I know. :-))

Patricia Kim · May 17th, 2004, 04:36 AM

I assumed you did. It's what I would do just to let them know they are behind the curve - or provoke them to get some info out, if they have it.

Frank Granovski · May 17th, 2004, 05:00 AM

You are correct, and I recieved a reply from them today. Good guess, Patricia.

May 12th, 2004, 09:24 PM	#46
Laurence Spiegel Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Brookline MA Posts: 57	1/4.7 vs 1/6 ccd The larger ccd has 66% more area, since it's the ratio of the ccd's areas ( .212^2 / .166^2 ) that we want to figure. Which makes me ask: Don't the mfrs read these boards? 1/3 or 1/2 an inch is hardly a massive chip, even with allowance for the larger components around them. Having ONE model in a consumer line with such a chip should pull in sales for whoever makes it. It seems marketing at cam mfrs is more concerned about cannibalizing a very small % of their pro sales rather than pulling in many more buyers from other brands. Much like how GM was years ago. Even enabling the unused IR capability and converting it to B&W is worth something. This is frustrating. I simply want to record video in ordinary, not staged settings - exactly the purpose of consumer video. Analog cameras of 10 years ago could do this. In my industry, a business will jump to fill a gap in the market. Here it looks like they see a need... and walk away. What's up? /end rant <<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : 1/4.7" = .212" 1/6" = .166" I don't see a big difference in size. -->>> Not big but considerable. 28% percent more. At least a step in the right direction, instead of going down to 1/8". Carlos

May 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM	#47
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	This is why I'm hanging on to my 1/3" and 1/4" CCD'd cams, and no one's going to talk me out of it. :-)) .33" verses .25" verses .212" verses .166" - and the more pixels there are's the smaller they are's. :-))

May 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM	#48
Gints Klimanis Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,222	>Is that a DV cam or a MPEG2 cam? If it's a MPEG2 cam it won't kill anything. Wouldn't MPEG2 at 25 MBits a second beat DV at the same data rate, both with the same frame size?

May 12th, 2004, 10:19 PM	#49
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	We all know about MPEG2's higher compression and lower playback resolution. :-))

May 15th, 2004, 05:15 PM	#50
Tom E Young Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 130	gs400 is dv video camcorder from I read what George said in post.

May 17th, 2004, 01:46 AM	#51
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Yes, according to those specs, but Pana e-mailed saying there's most likely going to be surprises.

May 17th, 2004, 04:24 AM	#52
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	So Pana indicated surprises after you told them about the specs posted on Guy's site?

May 17th, 2004, 04:28 AM	#53
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	No, before. I posted this on another thread. Wait, how did you know I e-mailed Pana about those specs? Never mind, I know. :-))

May 17th, 2004, 04:36 AM	#54
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	I assumed you did. It's what I would do just to let them know they are behind the curve - or provoke them to get some info out, if they have it.

May 17th, 2004, 05:00 AM	#55
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	You are correct, and I recieved a reply from them today. Good guess, Patricia.