Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
"David McCall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CPKdnfZJf-Y8scXfRVn-qA@comcast.com...
>
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:r%U5e.2103$RQ7.1440@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> The manufacturers have consciously decided to trade video quality for
>> compact size and the ability to shoot digital stills. Why they have done
>> this is beyond me.
>>
> You are far too smart a person to get away with such a statement.
>
> The cost of chip manufacturing is directly tied to the size of the chip
>
> Using the same chip in a video camera that you use in a still camera
> saves them on production cost and gives a wider market for the chip
First of all, they don't use the same chip in video cameras as in still
cameras. Video cameras use CCDs, whereas virtually all still cameras use
CMOS. Video cameras have relatively low-density sensors (most under 2
megapixels), whereas still cameras have high-density sensors (most over 3
megapixels, and good ones in the 5 to 8 megapixel range).
>
> Consumers like the idea of being able to take high resolution stills
> with the same camera, and having a wider zoom range is nice too
Video cameras don't take high-resolution stills -- not by comparison to even
inexpensive point-and-shoot digital still cameras. Video cameras take
stills at between 1 and 3 megapixel resolution. The higher end of the range
will permit reasonable 4 x 6 prints and, if you're not too picky, you might
even be able to pull off an 8 x 10. 1 and 2 megapixel prints aren't good
for anything but wallet-size and, perhaps, 3 x 5 inch snapshots.
Video cameras that use digital zoom rarely use the entire sensor but,
instead, sub-sample and average, resulting in blockiness. Digital zoom is
not a substitute for optical zoom for anyone but the least critical video
user. Moreover, no one, repeat, no one, can hand-hold a camcorder at more
than 10x. Anything beyond that is so shaky as to be useless.
Claiming high zoom ratios serves the same purpose as claiming high-density
CCDs -- it's advertising hype, designed to impress ignorant consumers.
>
> The smaller chips allow the optics to be smaller and less expensive
> a 10 to 1 zoom for a 2/3", 3 chip camera is cost thousands
My 3-chip 2/3" CCD cameras has a 10 to 1 zoom, and the entire unit cost only
$2100. Also note that smaller optics transmit less light, resulting in even
more diminished low-light capability -- it's pretty simple: the more glass,
the more light that gets refracted and transmitted to the sensor.
>
> Smaller optics mean smaller cameras. Consumers like a camera that
> fits in a pocket.
Not all consumers. The problem is, you can't have a small camera AND good
low-light performance. Consumers who want casual cameras for recording
birthday parties or their kids' ballet recital NEED low-light performance.
That's the primary gripe that I see in the rec.video newsgroup.
Note, too, that the smaller and lighter the camera, the less inertial
damping of shake, making videos produced by small cameras less stable.
> The smaller the camera, the more likely it will get used
Not if it can't be used indoors.
>
> If they make a consumer camera with quality and features desired by
> professionals, what keeps the pros from just buying consumer cameras
> instead of the more expensive pro cameras.
Why do you assume that all consumers want the same thing? Just as some
consumers are happy with a 19" television, others want a big-screen with
surround sound audio. I'm a consumer, an amateur and not a professional
videographer, and I want decent video quality from my camera. I don't want
stills from it -- I have a digital still camera for stills. I don't want
blue tooth. I don't want email. I don't want 180x zoom that is useless
beyond 10x.
> As it is Sony sells slightly
> beefed up consumer cameras as pro cameras.
You've got it backwards. Sony sells "consumerized" pro cameras to
consumers. The VX2000 is the consumer version of the PD-150. The VX2100 is
the consumer version of the PD-170. The major differences between the
consumer and pro versions are:
The pro versions take miniDV-CAM as well as miniDV, whereas the consumer
cameras are miniDV, only.
The proversions have dual mono balanced XLR mike inputs wheras the consumer
versions have a single stereo unbalanced miniplug input.
The pro versions come with a removable mono mike. The consumer versions
have a built in stereo mike.
The pro versions have a b&w viewfinder; the consumer versions have a color
viewfinder.
>
> Smaller chips and optics make for greater depth of field so the consumer
> has a better chance of their pictures being in focus
Depth of field is irrelevant to most camcorders, because it already so
great. That's one of the reasons video doesn't look like film -- video has
enormous depth of field.
>
> Smaller optics make the auto functions easier and cheaper too.
Not really. Stabilization is electronic in most consumer camcorders. Only
the prosumer and pro versions use optical image stabilization. There may be
incremental cost differences in servo size, but it's nominal as between a
1/6" and 2/3" ccd.
> Pros
> and serious hobbyist would rather have all manual controls, but they
> are not appropriate for casual home movies.
I'm a serious hobbyist, and I leave my VX2000 in full auto most of the time.
> A consumer needs to be
> able to pull the camera out of their pocket and shoot quickly, before the
> shot no longer exist.
I've never seen anyone carry around a camcorder for this purpose. Most
consumers use camcorders for special events -- travel, birthdays,
get-togethers, etc.
> If they had to calculate exposure and focus, they
> might either miss the shot or wind up with bad focus and or exposure,
> or nothing at all.
Have you ever heard the term "run and gun"? Pros and serious hobbyists need
to do the same thing. Do you think serious hobbyists use their cameras only
to make low-budget Hollywood epics?
>
> "Auto everything" almost insures that something recognizable will be
> on the tape.
My VX2000 is auto-everything.
>
> I know everybody wants a fully manual camera with 3 big chips,
I don't know of any fully manual 3-chip prosumer cameras. All of them,e.g.
the Sony VX series, Canon XL and GL, have fully automatic modes.
> at a
> consumer price, however big chips require big glass, and proper
> manual controls for a big lens are more expensive than auto controls
> on a tiny lens.
They're not that much more expensive. How much does blue chip in a camera
cost? How much does a higher-density CCD add? The maufacturers stuff most
consumer machines with unnecessary and junky gimmicks that add nothing to
the video quality, and serve only as marketing tools to the uneducated.
>
> The bottom line is; if you want big chips with good glass and proper
> manual controls you have to look into a serious pro camera, and be
> willing to pay the price of that technology.
Complete and utter nonsense. The VX series, the XL and GL, and even
Pansonics higher-end consumer 3-chippers are most decidely NOT "serious pro
cameras." For that matter Sony's and Canon's high-end consumer line can
produce a decent video image.
> This is certainly not a
> concept that should be beyond you.
It's a concept that is simply and completely wrong. The lack of video
quality that is part-and-parcel of most consumer camcorders is the result of
a conscious decision by manufacturers to focus on marketing gimmicks to
uneducated camera users; it has little, if anything, to do with cost of
manufacture.
>
> David
>
YWdnUZVoONMvMrfRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram