Jump to content

favorite video camera...technical questions..


paulmpianist

Recommended Posts

I have a JVC Gr-DV800 U. It has been a great camera except for a couple minor things.

 

Now i am looking at new cameras.

 

Here's what puzzles me. My camera has 1/4 inch image sensor. I got a really good deal on it, now the higher priced ones with hard drives even... seem to be coming out with 1/6 inch sensors. I know this is a very complicated discussion because pixel count has to be balanced with lens quality and everything, but it seems to me the sensor sizes should be getting bigger with improvements in the technological wave of progress.

 

The video resolution on mine is 680 k and 1.3 Megapixel for stills. It is really a good camera.

 

So if anybody has a little discussion to add about their great camera I would be glad to hear it.

 

Especially with respect to things like, sensor size, optical zoom ( I always think bigger is better, but some of the expensive ones only have 10x zoom, why is that? great lens and expensive, less zoom. cheaper camera 25x xoom), and pixels and resolution of video.

thanks

 

please answer quickly before the president of the internet comes along and censors me for being off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mlpasley

I arranged for you to be moved to the General Chat area where you can discuss any topic and not get deleted. ( as long as you meet the Roxio discussion guidelines, which you do )

 

As for my favorite digital camcorder.... it would be one of the new High Definitions ones, but they're not in my budget range yet.

 

Most of the high def ones have 1/3" sensors, record to tape, and have a huge pixel gross capture.

 

As to why there are so many choices.... my guess would be that they are appealing to different markets. For example, someone who doesn't need a large zoom capacity might opt for a model with an analog digital pass through to capture old VHS tapes.

 

The only way you can be an informed consumer is to do your research in advance on the internet. Once you start researching, you'll find that a high price doesn't always mean a better camcorder.

 

My personal recommendation would be to get the highest pixel capture that you can afford with the other features that you need. The amount of pixels that your camcorder records, the better the resolution will be when you play it on a larger screen tv.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it seems to me the sensor sizes should be getting bigger with improvements in the technological wave of progress.
What is your logic behind this statement? Like CPUs, image sensors pack more into smaller area giving you BETTER resolution than the larger oneyou have now. As they, 'size doesn't matter.' :)

 

First make a list of feature that you think need and a list of 'nice but not needed' features. I usually start with a price range which narrows things down alot. Somethings to think about:

3CCD vs single CCD

Standard definition vs. Hi definition

miniDVD vs miniDV tape vs 8mm digital tape vs hard drive models

 

You will have less trouble transferring video to the computer with tape models at the moment because all software is specifically designed for that. The newer hard drive models may use MPEG 2 or MPEG 4. MPEG 4 isn't very well supported yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your logic behind this statement? Like CPUs, image sensors pack more into smaller area giving you BETTER resolution than the larger oneyou have now. As they, 'size doesn't matter.' :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't know about video but when it comes to digcams...bigger is tremendously better. Shoudn't it be the same for a vidcam? Maybe quality is going up, but gargantuan sensors rule.

 

A larger sensor means the imaging pixels can do a better job of 'seeing' without interference and that wretched 'noise' factor.

 

Compare a pic from a 'full frame' 35mm sized sensor to a basic camera with one half or a third the size and you'll see. And they're nothing compared to the digital backs.

 

You won't see the prices on those coming down either. It just costs too too much to make sensors that size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed my point.... it's RESOLUTION that counts. If you have a 1/4" sensor with only 380K, it's certainly not better than a 1/6" sensor with 1100K. The physical size of the sensor is not relative. I was pointing out that with modern manufacturing , they are getting much better resolution imaging sensors into smaller packages.

 

but gargantuan sensors rule.
And something you will NEVER see in a consumer product. 35mm full frame digital sensor? Not unless you are willing to spend $10k or more for Pro level equipment. Don't think the poster had that in mind.

 

As for the so-called wretched 'noise' factor, that has never been issue for me personally. Unless you are making wall sized enlargements, it would never be noticeable. I've printed out 13 X 19 several times and you would have to get a magnifying glass to see any wretched 'noise' factor. Most consumers print 4X6. With camcorders, I wouldn't think that the wretched 'noise' factor be an issue unless you have a 50" or larger TV and even then, I don't think that the average consumer would notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed my point.... it's RESOLUTION that counts. If you have a 1/4" sensor with only 380K, it's certainly not better than a 1/6" sensor with 1100K. The physical size of the sensor is not relative. I was pointing out that with modern manufacturing , they are getting much better resolution imaging sensors into smaller packages.

 

And something you will NEVER see in a consumer product. 35mm full frame digital sensor? Not unless you are willing to spend $10k or more for Pro level equipment. Don't think the poster had that in mind.

 

As for the so-called wretched 'noise' factor, that has never been issue for me personally. Unless you are making wall sized enlargements, it would never be noticeable. I've printed out 13 X 19 several times and you would have to get a magnifying glass to see any wretched 'noise' factor. Most consumers print 4X6. With camcorders, I wouldn't think that the wretched 'noise' factor be an issue unless you have a 50" or larger TV and even then, I don't think that the average consumer would notice it.

 

 

Yeah, I should have been clearer that I was talking pretty much about digital cams and photo quality prints. Check out the Canon eos-1ds Mark II for UNDER $7000. Yes, we're talking over 16million pixels from a 35mm size sensor. I realize the OP is probably looking only for vidcams but I just wanted to offer an opinion that it only makes sense that the largest quality sensor you can find can't be a bad thing.

 

And there's something most comsumers out there stump me on. If they're only printing out a 4X6 or a little 13X19, why buy a camera with more than two or three megapixels? Lots of reasons but the OP was asking about vid.

 

Try comparing a consumer digcam print to film and you'll notice that noise junk real fast. I notice the digcam noise and crummy colours right off the bat on a regular size tv. Makes me shudder to think about looking at it on a 50 incher.

 

I find it sad that the average consumer out there doesn't notice vid or dig cam noise. They should shout out loud and demand the manufacturers give them quality pictures instead of the blurry, colour noise filled stuff out there unless you spend five gees and up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I should have been clearer that I was talking pretty much about digital cams and photo quality prints. Check out the Canon eos-1ds Mark II for UNDER $7000. Yes, we're talking over 16million pixels from a 35mm size sensor. I realize the OP is probably looking only for vidcams but I just wanted to offer an opinion that it only makes sense that the largest quality sensor you can find can't be a bad thing.

 

And there's something most comsumers out there stump me on. If they're only printing out a 4X6 or a little 13X19, why buy a camera with more than two or three megapixels? Lots of reasons but the OP was asking about vid.

 

Try comparing a consumer digcam print to film and you'll notice that noise junk real fast. I notice the digcam noise and crummy colours right off the bat on a regular size tv. Makes me shudder to think about looking at it on a 50 incher.

 

I find it sad that the average consumer out there doesn't notice vid or dig cam noise. They should shout out loud and demand the manufacturers give them quality pictures instead of the blurry, colour noise filled stuff out there unless you spend five gees and up.

 

 

Thanks this is the opinionated discussion i was looking for. It takes a while to get a grasp of what the specifications are really good for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I should have been clearer that I was talking pretty much about digital cams and photo quality prints. Check out the Canon eos-1ds Mark II for UNDER $7000. Yes, we're talking over 16million pixels from a 35mm size sensor. I realize the OP is probably looking only for vidcams but I just wanted to offer an opinion that it only makes sense that the largest quality sensor you can find can't be a bad thing.

 

And there's something most comsumers out there stump me on. If they're only printing out a 4X6 or a little 13X19, why buy a camera with more than two or three megapixels? Lots of reasons but the OP was asking about vid.

 

Try comparing a consumer digcam print to film and you'll notice that noise junk real fast. I notice the digcam noise and crummy colours right off the bat on a regular size tv. Makes me shudder to think about looking at it on a 50 incher.

 

I find it sad that the average consumer out there doesn't notice vid or dig cam noise. They should shout out loud and demand the manufacturers give them quality pictures instead of the blurry, colour noise filled stuff out there unless you spend five gees and up.

 

I guarantee that my wife would not see the difference. She loves what I do, with what I have, and so does everyone that watches my productions. If I spent 5 G's on the software and hardware, I sure the hell would hear about it, and you can bet that they wouldn't be accolades!

 

But then again, I am not doing it as a business. :):huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee that my wife would not see the difference. She loves what I do, with what I have, and so does everyone that watches my productions. If I spent 5 G's on the software and hardware, I sure the hell would hear about it, and you can bet that they wouldn't be accolades!

 

But then again, I am not doing it as a business. :):huh:

I'll wade in just a little bit. I don't do a lot of video work, but for stills, I have a modest Kodak DX6440, which produces some very nice pictures, as long as you have enough light. And that's where the noise discussion comes into play. Most of your CCD arrays will do a good job with plenty of light, but low-light situations are where you'll find the "noise" differences between sensors. Taking pictures in our church without enough light makes the dark areas very blotchy, and I'm sure a better camera would help smooth those areas out.

 

The other trick is to add more light. The built-in flash on most cameras is good to maybe 10' or so, the same with mine. But at one point I picked up a remote optical trigger to use with my old hot-shoe flash from my 35mm film camera. Now I can use that flash with my digital camera and get good flash shots from over 20'. (The main flash, it's a dual flash unit, can be "focused" to concentrate the light on a smaller area.) Back to the church example, to get pictures of the altar area when it's set up for Christmas or Easter, I set up my portrait flash units (with optical triggers) to light up the altar area, then from the balconey, using the hand-held flash, I have enough light to trigger the big flash units from 60' back, which then add enough light to get some good pictures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Grandpabruce...didn't want to give the impression that equipment in the affordable range is poor. I just meant to say that I feel that it should be better than it is for the money people pay...such as it's more cost effective to give you 'fireworks mode' on your camera instead of a better sensor.

 

 

Deweywright....you're right on the money with that light set-up..good instincts. As much as I may (forgive me people) rant about digital cameras, a good picture is about the light more than it is about the camera. If you have sufficient light, flattering light, chances are you also have a picture to be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...