Video Cameras forum

General discussion

1920 x 1080 on CMOS vs 1440 x 1080 on CCD

by incavenuziano / November 21, 2009 7:38 PM PST

I?ve been looking for a new camcorder and can?t make up my mind.
I read many specifications and still can figure out what camcorder has the best features and picture X price tag within my limited budget, so I ask:

With decent light ? sunshine or proper studio light - which one will have the best picture; Panasonic HS300 or TM 300 with 1920 x 1080 around USD1,100.00 or the Panasonic HVX200 or Canon XH ? A1 both with 1440 x 1080 above US4,000.00 where does US3,000.00 goes? Will the top priced have a picture four times better than the shipper? Or even twice as better? Or even the same? And since they all record in "low" 720 x 480, what about compare with the Panasonic DVX 100BP or the Canon XL2 or even the - used for under US$2,000.00 DSR 300 with 4.2.2 and 2/3 CCD - going crazy here?

What is the gain?
Has the new technology finally crossed the bounds between ?home movie? and the ?not a millionaire? professional?

In these camcorders, what is best 1920 x 1080 on CMOS or 1440 x 1080 on CCD?

Can anybody help me answer it?
Thank You.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: 1920 x 1080 on CMOS vs 1440 x 1080 on CCD
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 1920 x 1080 on CMOS vs 1440 x 1080 on CCD
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
They key is lighting.
by boya84 / November 22, 2009 12:05 AM PST

Under good lighting conditions with little fast motion - in sunlight or in the studio - ANY camcorder can take good video - why not save your money and get a pocket camcorder?

But we don't live in a studio and we don't always limit our video capture to bright light and no (or little) action... so. you need to look for big lenses and imaging chips (for good low light behavior) and leat amount of compression for reduced "artifacting".

No, I do not agree that "the new technology finally crossed the bounds between ?home movie? and the ?not a millionaire? professional". The image capture is only one part - you have audio to deal with too. And with the manual controls on a consumer grade camcorder buried in the menu, when used, you will shake the camera... not so much on the prosumer or pro grade where the most used manual controls are on the outside of the camcorder and easy to get to and use.

Collapse -
Thank You
by incavenuziano / November 22, 2009 12:43 AM PST
In reply to: They key is lighting.

Thank for answering.
Ok, not always perfect light, but I wanted to rule out this factory since I intend to use it in a controlled environment, thus leaving the question to 1920 x 1080 quoted as prosumer vs. 1440 x 1080 quoted as semi professional or professional and even 720 x 480 with 4.2.2. Who?s best after all? Especially if afterward it will be shown on new HD TV set?

The question remains. With proper light, which camera produces the better picture?

Or are they the same?

The same ?rule out? goes to audio, by means of the same wireless mic on either camcorder, with plenty of time to pre-set.

Thank you again.

Collapse -
my responses stand - though I'll add a little more...
by boya84 / November 22, 2009 4:22 AM PST
In reply to: Thank You

With proper light, most "normal" people won't be able to tell the difference. Remember, standard definition video is 480 horizontal lines. Anything past that (720 and 1080) is high definition. Anything past that (like from the Red One or Silicon Imaging video systems) is "ultra-high definition".

Since we don't know what you want to capture to video or what you plan to edit with or on (computer hardware or software), we don't know what you *really* need.

With "proper light" and other environmentals geared toward a specific camcorder's specifications and requirements, under ideal conditions, it could be very challenging to say which is "best" within a potentially narrow window opening. That is not how real life is. As the camcorders lenses and imaging chips get larger, they get more expensive and the "opportunity window" for use opens wider - because the camcorder allows more flexibility.

Studio cameras are different from camcorders. Real studio video cameras have no onboard media to record the captured video. They have no method to capture audio as that is done by a dedicated audio system. The audio and video are fed to a mixer that feeds monitors and various recording devices.

How are you planning to get the HD video for playback to the 42" HDTV?

+++++++++++

Wireless audio has not changed much in many years.
Low end units use shared frequencies in the FM, 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands. These bands are shared with FM radio, garage door openers, home wireless phones, wifi LANs, microwave oven emissions and lot of other stuff. Expect interference - and if not from the other items, then they can pick up interference from florescent and incandescent lighting commonly found in studios (especially if dimmers or other lighting controls are used are used.)

To reduce the potential for interference with wireless audio, equipment using the UHF range is still best (VHF *might* be OK, but don't take the chance and just go UHF). Sennheiser, Shure, Sony (professional ENG equipment) and Audio Technica should make the short list. Others use UHF but are not full diversity or have other "issues". This stuff will need XLR connectors. If you choose to get a consumer or prosumer camcorder with a 1/8" mic jack, expect to spend some $ getting a decent XLR adapter.

If you are in a studio, you might be better off using wired gear and shielded cables (balanced; XLR connectors) if the subject does not need to move much.

++++++

You might want to do whatever it is you want to do on the cheap. That's cool. Keep in mind that the folks at production companies and studios use what they use because they know what works. They want to NOT spend money as much as the next person - that means more money in their pocket. But they also know time is money and screwing around with low-end gear can waste time. They also know that low end gear does not provide the flexibility they want and staying within a very narrow equipment environmental use area does not provide the flexibility they need.

On the other hand, you do not need such flexibility because the conditions under which you plan to capture video can be tailored to the camcorder you use... remember, the camcorder is only a small piece of a large system. A cheap, low end, camcorder, when used 4 feet away from the subject may be "good enough" video quality for you, but may make the subject nervous or may not provide enough framing in the shot or enough room for queue card use. A different camcorder could be used a little further away and not make the subject fell so "cramped".

Your seemingly simple question does not have a simple answer.

Collapse -
That is not easy.
by incavenuziano / November 22, 2009 7:51 AM PST

I agree with everything and it all adds to my questions.
I just wish I could try all the gear to choose the one that fits best my needs.

I was thinking of 3 or 4 TM300 plugged in an i7 (lots of memory and hard drives) through the HDMI for further editing or even a live cut.

Maybe the same system using the fire wire with the Canon or even the DVX 100?

I can?t even dream of those pure cameras, way too expensive.

The sound is not so important because it will be just interviews.
Thank you

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?