Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

ccd or cmos sensors.

Nov 25, 2010 9:35PM PST

anyone know what the difference is between ccd and cmos sensors?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Different technologies.
Nov 26, 2010 4:16AM PST

And since both have strong and weak points why bother with that and move forward to questions like "I like my Sanko PSD with CCD images but _______?" You fill in the blanks.
Bob

- Collapse -
The Difference
Nov 26, 2010 7:37PM PST

I have stumbled upon many differences while reading numerous magazines.

The main differences are is that CCD or like most cameras nowadays use 3CCD's is that 3CCD technology is greater in low light, provides excellent color rendition in daylight and are more industrial standard. They are more expensive (hence expensive cameras use these) and suck up the battery life. So if your camera has 3 CCD chips is will suck out the battery life


CMOS on the other hand is cheaper, not very good in low light. Cheaper, smaller cameras have these, but as the market grows, it becomes difficult to see the difference in these.

there is no right or wrong choice, nowadays it just depends on the camera, and numerous other factors,


Hope that helped,


- Aidan

- Collapse -
CCD
Nov 26, 2010 11:33PM PST

Thanks. I found a site that explained CCD and CMOS but it did not talk about low light shooting limits for CMOS. It did say the lens, the sensor dynamic range and the compression technology used will all affect video quality. Some cameras I have seen in the $500 range (Sony and Cannon) list CMOS with good low light shooting because of additional electronics. At this point I am looking at the Cannon HF-M3xx series and the Sony HDR-CX3xx series. Both have built in SSD flash memory, an SD card, and optical stabilization.

- Collapse -
The manufacturer's claims
Nov 27, 2010 1:53AM PST

on "good low light shooting because of additional electronics" are marketing bunk. Read through the specs on the consumer camcorders you are investigating. The "low light" video capture relies on slow shutter speed (1/30 second or longer) which results in "ghosting" if there is any movement (which they don't tell you). If there is no movement, then the video is "OK" but likely still grainy. Even if the shutter speed is not that slow, "low light" results can include grainy noise in the captured video.

If you need "good low light shooting" you have some options:

1) Add light. This can be in the form of video lighting, worklights (from the hardware store), stage lighting or other method. Whatever the case, learn to use the camcorder's white balance - and use it.

2) Get a camcorder with larger lenses - they allow more light into the camcorder to hit the imaging chip(s) - AND larger imaging chips. Better yet, a multi-chip array. These are the main reasons professional grade camcorders do well in low light. The *type* of imaging chip (CCD vs CMOS) is not nearly as important as the size and configuration of the imager (1/3" in a 3-chip array). These two components (lenses and imaging chips) are the main contributors to the cost of manufacture. Small pocket camcorders have small lenses and imaging chips - and few manual controls - and do poorly in "low light". As the camcorders move up the food chain, the lenses and imaging chips get larger and various controls start allowing manual intervention. This does not mean the auto controls go away - it just means there is an option to use a certain control in manual mode - but it is the glass and the imager that are the bulk of the $ difference and low light performance.

I realize that your budget does not allow for larger lenses and imaging chips - I just want to be sure you are not setting yourself up for disappointment. When comparing similarly priced consumer camcorders, their "low light" video quality will be similar - they are similar in price for several reasons - including similarly-sized lenses and imaging chips...

Both the Canon HF M series and Sony HDR-CX300 series use 1/4" CMOS imaging chips. The Canon HF M series lens is a bit larger (37mm filter diameter) than the Sony HDR-CX300 (30mm). In this instance, the Canon's low light behavior is likely marginally better because more light is allowed in for the imaging chip to process.

There are other items you may want to consider (if you have not already do so)...

Mic jack:
HF M300 - Yes, built-in (1/8" - 3.5mm - stereo connector.
HDR-CX300 - No, but one can be added
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/564249-REG/Pearstone_9011300_Microphone_Adapter_for_Sony.html
Be aware that neither camcorder has manual audio control.

The HDR-CX300 has "SmoothSlowRecord" which allows up to 240 frames per second capture for a 3 second burst resulting in 12 second playback. The HF M300 does not.

Because both have the "lens filter diameter" specification, both have lens threads that can accept add-on filters (and lenses).

Unscientific comparison for video samples... At vimeo.com, many people list the camcorder they use to capture images in their upload tags. I found a few using "CX300" and "M300".

Both camcorders (or series) capture high compression AVCHD to MTS video. With consumer camcorders recording to flash memory and hard disc drives, this is pretty much your only choice ( a few save to TOD files, but the AVCHD compression method is the same. This is not necessarily good for effectively capturing fast action.

Some consideration needs to be given to what you are planning to use as a video editor - the computer hardware and software for your "post production" environment. As well, the storage and playback method for your high definition video... and what you plan to do to archive the video so it is available in 5, 10, 20 or more years from now - if that is important to you.

The software included in the box with either camcorder is useless. For Windows, consider Sony Vegas (before Windows 7, earlier versions of MovieMaker cannot deal directly with AVCHD files); for Macintosh, iMovie '08 or '09 are OK (earlier versions cannot deal directly with AVCHD files) - Final Cut Express is great. In either case, you *could* transcode the video to a format your video editor can deal with, but take care to no lose the high definition video quality.

The imaging chip is only one part of a "system" to consider when going down the camcorder path... but that's just my opinion...

- Collapse -
About to buy Cannon HF-M30, I think!!
Nov 27, 2010 8:56AM PST

Thanks for all the good and specific advice. It will take awhile to fully digest it. Two questions. A CNET review and one other said the battery life is very short. How short is short, 1 hour, 2 hours, any guess? The one I saw at Best Buy did NOT have the mic input or headphone output, the one online (Amazon, B&H or Tiger) had them. Wondering if the one at BB was a BB special or last years model. I also need to check the prices on a longer life battery and an external light (camera has a hot shoe) for better low light shooting. Could have got this camera at BB first thing Fri morning for $400, but I never buy anything without fully researching it first.

Thanks for your help

- Collapse -
Meant M31
Nov 27, 2010 9:00AM PST

I meant the Cannon HF-M31 with 32 GB flash memory. It was $500 Fri morning and still is, until 10 PM tonight. Best Buy says their regular price is $700 but will wait until my battery life and mic/headphone jack questions get answered. Be interesting to see what the Xmas prices are.

Thanks

- Collapse -
I discovered long ago
Nov 27, 2010 1:00PM PST

that the battery included with the camcorder is essentially the "bare minimum". With the new crop of flash memory camcorders using the battery design from miniDV the tape HV series (and hard disc drive HG series - and the DVD cams), the flash memory camcorders will have the longest battery life because flash memory cams have no motor to drive the storage media. BUT, I never depend on that which came in the box. I always get an optional high capacity rechargeable battery from the camcorder manufacturer. The battery that comes in the box becomes the "emergency spare". My HF S100 battery will go for about 5-6 hours, I think.

According to the specs at Canon, the HF M30, HF-M31 and HF M300 all each have a stereo 1/8" (3.5mm) audio-in connector. Their manuals also confirm that. You can confirm for yourself... The "R" series (step below) and the "S" series step above all have a audio-in jack, too... As for a headphone jack - if the camcorder does not have a proper dedicated headphone jack, it is easy enough to just use the AV-out cable with an adapter for the red/white (right/left audio) RCA jacks to a headphone. But this
http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300003135/01/hfm30-m31-m300-nim-en.pdf
manual for the M30 and M31 says there is a headphone connector (page 82).

Without manual audio control all you can do is confirm that poor audio is being recorded. I know for sure the "S" series has manual audio control - not positive on the M or R, but fairly certain they do not. Page 85 describes a very rudimentary attenuator of - or on to manage loud audio. Use of an external control (like an XLR adapter) would be appropriate. At this point, you may not need it - they are most useful for REALLY LOUD audio and keep the auto-mic gain from getting overloaded and recording poor (muddy, lots of static) audio.

I'm fairly certain any change in design (if there was such a thing just for BB) would have included a different model number (and not visible for comparison at canon.com).

I would not use the hot shoe for a video light. That will use power and bring recording time WAY down. But that's just me.

Good for you for doing your homework first and not succumbing to any pressure to buy.