PDA

View Full Version : 3CCD cameras




wrxguy
Aug 11, 2005, 01:00 PM
Anyone have any recomendations for a 3 chip camera? I think right now I am gonna go w/ Canon's GL2 because you seem to get more bang for your buck...im not really a fan of the VX2000 but i dont know anything about the 2100...any ideas??



gangst
Aug 11, 2005, 03:01 PM
I think that the sony 2000 and 2100 are both pretty old cameras. Also they vary in size alot compared to some other good 3CCD cameras such as the Sony DCR-TRV950 which is a great cam.
The GL2 is a very good camera and if I was left with the choice of Sony 2100 and GL2, I'd choose the GL2.
Panasonic have also released a new 3CCD camera that is worth a look. But for the price you'd probably pay for these cams you might be able to get Sony's new HDV cam but that has CMOS chips and not CCD's.
However, all the cameras listed above are very good and 3CCD's/CMOS does improve quality and colour significantly.

LethalWolfe
Aug 11, 2005, 04:06 PM
Anyone have any recomendations for a 3 chip camera? I think right now I am gonna go w/ Canon's GL2 because you seem to get more bang for your buck...im not really a fan of the VX2000 but i dont know anything about the 2100...any ideas??

What's your budget and what do you plan on using the camera for?


Lethal

crachoar
Aug 12, 2005, 04:41 PM
All three major brands make nice 3CCD cameras.

I've always liked Sony's interface the best - however - I feel Panasonic makes the best quality (high-end) cameras.

I've shot on all of the cameras you've mentioned, and I really liked the way the Panasonic footage came out - moreso than Canon or Sony.

The colors were vibrant and detailed. With the Sony - things seemed a little blurred and washed out.

It all depends on your budget and your aspirations. However, the GL2 is still a pretty nice camera - and I'm sure you'd be happy with it.

Just make sure your camera shoots at 24p so that it will resemble film.

It looks better than software tweaking, and it saves time.

Or, you could always wait for the 'prosumer' HD cameras to lower the price of cameras like the GL2...

Lacero
Aug 12, 2005, 04:48 PM
Sony PD170. Cuz it have XLR inputs and awesomest low light capability and all days battery life.

edit: also forgots to mention, really sturdy construkshon.

LethalWolfe
Aug 12, 2005, 10:03 PM
Just make sure your camera shoots at 24p so that it will resemble film.

It looks better than software tweaking, and it saves time.


The only 24p SD prosumer cameras are the DVX100 and the XL2. Those might be out of range of his budget.


Lethal

MacNoobie
Aug 12, 2005, 10:45 PM
I wish there were more HDV camera's out on the market today, I'm looking to blow about 4 grand on one (HDR-FX1) and I've looked at like the Canon XL2 but it just seems dated so to speak. I realize the HD era isnt quite here yet but I'd rather be able to record something in high def and then just down res it to screen,dvd,web use. The one thing I do like about the XL2 is that you can change the lenses on it depending on what you're doing but the 5k in price is a little out of my price range.

I dont know I want to get into the HD era so to speak but the camera's not quite there being only 1440x1080 for the Sony and 1280x720 for the JVC I saw.

xsedrinam
Aug 12, 2005, 11:18 PM
I wish there were more HDV camera's out on the market today, I'm looking to blow about 4 grand on one (HDR-FX1) and I've looked at like the Canon XL2 but it just seems dated so to speak. I realize the HD era isnt quite here yet but I'd rather be able to record something in high def and then just down res it to screen,dvd,web use. The one thing I do like about the XL2 is that you can change the lenses on it depending on what you're doing but the 5k in price is a little out of my price range.

I dont know I want to get into the HD era so to speak but the camera's not quite there being only 1440x1080 for the Sony and 1280x720 for the JVC I saw.
Since you've mentioned JVC, I've been shooting a JVC GY-DV300 a little over a year now with excellent quality and color. I haven't been that impressed with the firewire/capturing interface, but the quality is good. They were around the $1900-2200 price range, but I don't know, now.
http://www.prestigecamera.com/product.asp?id=jvcgydv300kit&l=Froogle
X

LethalWolfe
Aug 13, 2005, 12:28 AM
I dont know I want to get into the HD era so to speak but the camera's not quite there being only 1440x1080 for the Sony and 1280x720 for the JVC I saw.

IIRC there are no cameras that have CCDs which are pixel-for-pixel matches for the 2 HD b'cast resolutions (the super hi-end film replacement cameras might, but I'm not sure). Between pixel shifting (the "green" CCD being physically shifted in relation to the "red" and "blue" CCDs) and the compression that takes place to put the signal to tape you don't need the CCDs to be that big. You also have to consider the quality of the lenses. What's the point of having huge CCDs if the glass can't resolve enough detail to feed the CCDs all the info they can handle? Now more than ever, because of HD, the biggest limiting factor on prosumer & consumer cameras is going to be the quality of the fixed lens.

Plus there are no TVs (at least not consumer TVs) that actually show the full HD image. They all cheat in one way or another.


Lethal

Rod Rod
Aug 13, 2005, 02:09 AM
I dont know I want to get into the HD era so to speak but the camera's not quite there being only 1440x1080 for the Sony and 1280x720 for the JVC I saw.The Sony pixel shifts its three 960x1080 CCDs to 1440x1080, which in turn is stretched to 1920x1080 for 1080i playback.

The JVC has native 1280x720, which is the exact same resolution as 720p, so your comment about "not quite there" doesn't apply as far as resolution goes.

Lacero
Aug 13, 2005, 02:13 AM
The Sony pixel shifts its three 960x1080 CCDs to 1440x1080, which in turn is stretched to 1920x1080 for 1080i playback.Also, the 1080 interlaced format having some interlacing summations so reallys the real resolution of 1080i is really something likes 800 horizontal resolution. So very close to 720P.

MacNoobie
Aug 13, 2005, 03:23 AM
The Sony pixel shifts its three 960x1080 CCDs to 1440x1080, which in turn is stretched to 1920x1080 for 1080i playback.

The JVC has native 1280x720, which is the exact same resolution as 720p, so your comment about "not quite there" doesn't apply as far as resolution goes.

While I liked how sharp the images were on the JVC's lcd I'm not too crazy on the JVC brand, though it is progressively scanned images as oppose to the interlaced 1080 that the Sony does. I might end up going the route of the XL2 seeing as it has the 30p and 24p modes along with the fine image control over the video in low light modes and what not. The added bonus seems to be that you can buy other lenses for it so that to me kinda out weighs the high def res. The only reason why I'm trying to weigh the HD because then when high def takes off with HD-DVD and Blue Ray then I can go back to the source material and it'd already be in high def. Also I'm not sure on the windows side of QT7 whats required to play HD encoded content as far as CPU and ram goes since I know on the mac nothing short of a dual 2.5Ghz can play back 1080p decently. I know that not many people have high def tv's and the ability with a set top dvd player to play back any sort of HD content but I was originally thinking of recording in HD then editing it in FCP5 in HD then outputting it to SD.

Assuming I can find a reputable dealer with a decent $3,500-$4,000 price on the XL2 I might end up getting that and growing with the camera.