PDA

View Full Version : 1/2in or larger chips?



FatBird19
09-23-2005, 05:36 PM
What's preventing companies from moving up to larger chips? Is it just cost? I really have no idea.

dashwood
09-23-2005, 07:55 PM
What's preventing companies from moving up to larger chips? Is it just cost? I really have no idea.

Actually, it is the 1/3" HD CCD that is the new kid on the block.

You can buy a Sony CineAlta F900 for around $100,000 (save some cash for a lens.) The same goes for the Panasonic Varicam HDC27. They are both 2/3"
Next year JVC is releasing the HD7000 for around $25000. It is 2/3" HDV and will also have a higher bit-rate ProHD EX mode.
There is also the Thompson Viper that shoots 1080 uncompressed 4:4:4, and I believe it is a 2/3" chip. I have no idea on price, but I would guess at least $250,000.

The biggest chip is in the Dalsa Origin, which has an image sensor larger than a 35mm film frame. It will record uncompressed 4K 4:4:4 resolution straight to an array of hard drives. I don't think you can even buy this one. I think it is rental only. Check it out: http://www.dalsa.com/dc/origin/dc_sensor.asp

Walter_Graff
09-23-2005, 08:11 PM
Cost!

theHeadlessPuppy
09-23-2005, 09:10 PM
Just look for the cost between a 1/2" and a 1/3" professional SD camera...

the sensor size automatically adds a lot. however that's not all there is to it. Look at the size of all this so called 'prosumer' cameras. They're tiny compared to the pro ones. 1/2" means bigger camera, 2/3" even bigger!

Anyway, there a 2/3" coming soon from JVC. If you have $35k to spend...

Barry_Green
09-24-2005, 12:32 AM
Don't forget that they've been pushing CCDs smaller too... there's 1/4", and even 1/6" CCDs out there...

FatBird19
09-24-2005, 01:43 AM
Don't forget that they've been pushing CCDs smaller too... there's 1/4", and even 1/6" CCDs out there...


I currently have to deal with a 1/6in CCD.....I hate it.

I'm going to move up to a DVX100a. I would do HD, but for one thing it's not in my pricerange, and for another I'd like to give it a little bit longer for the technology to round itself out a little better.

Hey, do any of you think that the DVX will go down in price? I'd be inclined to think not, becuase it's not like any of the HD cameras are competetively priced with the DVX.

Barry_Green
09-24-2005, 01:48 AM
There's already a $500 rebate on it... that's all the cost reduction we're likely to see. The 100A will be replaced by the 100B, probably sometime next month. Jan's already said that the 100B will carry the same retail price as the 100A currently does ($3995).

Ralph Oshiro
09-24-2005, 02:16 AM
What's preventing companies from moving up to larger chips? Is it just cost? I really have no idea.I think the words we're searching for are market size and market segmentation. I was pissed as hell when I went to NAB 2005 and found that NO ONE chose to introduce a 1/2" 24p camera (SD or HDV). You know, like a decent, pro-body 24p camera for about $8K-$12K. Get it? Something in BETWEEN an HVX200 and an SDX900 in price. But I guess the market size for this price point is smaller than the size for a $6K camera--so, they don't. Instead, they ALL just make MORE $5K-$6K 1/3" cameras with the name noise and sensitivity limitations we've been suffering with since the development of the original VX1000 (which we were damn glad to have at the time).

Why does every manufacturer try to eek out every ounce of performance out of these tiny little 1/3" CCDs? Just upgrade the CCD block to 1/2' or 2/3" and charge us a few grand more! Noise and sensitivity issues disappear! But that would diminish the manufacturer's product line differentiation among their higher-end, SDX900- and XDCAM-class cameras. So here I go on my 2/3" chip rant again . . . the hell with 1/3" cameras. I'm going with a 2/3" native-16:9, 24p standard-definition camera, the Sony DSR450WSL. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's only 4:1:1, but it's DVCAM at 5:1 DCT compression--none of this weird long-GOP, non-I-frame-only MPEG crap that falls apart if you even look at it funny. At $15K, I think it's a bargain.

Ralph Oshiro
09-24-2005, 04:08 AM
Then again, I just might buy a JVC HD100 anyway.

mmm
09-24-2005, 04:10 AM
Cost due to production scale. The market for the larger chips is small (well compared to say mobile phones - not everyone has a 2/3" camcorder) and the customers tend to be relying on the equipment to make money, so they can charge plenty for it.

If 2/3" cameras were a must have item, you would probably see them for sub $1000, problem is the market is too small to warrant the production processes and R&D that would make the chips that affordable.

Also, like NBC pointed out, these companies, especially Sony, like to have a line of division between their high-end and low-end gear. They deliberately crow bar this divide to keep it open. They have little interest in customer benefits, only profits... someone should probably point out that the two can go hand in hand very well.

Walter_Graff
09-24-2005, 06:25 AM
And there should be deferent size chips because there are different needs. Folks shooting their kids don't need to spend $3000 on a camera, while guys shooting TV shows want all the bells and whistles in terms of how the picture is made. None is wrong, just different and that difference fits the particular need.

mmm
09-24-2005, 07:39 AM
And there should be deferent size chips because there are different needs. Folks shooting their kids don't need to spend $3000 on a camera, while guys shooting TV shows want all the bells and whistles in terms of how the picture is made. None is wrong, just different and that difference fits the particular need.

Yeah... the last thing a consumer cam wants is depth of field. Everything wants to be in lovely focus :laugh:

Barry_Green
09-24-2005, 12:48 PM
Actually, there finally is an announcement on a 1/2" cam: the Sony XDCAM-HD camera is 1/2". No mention of 24p though, nor of cost...

FatBird19
09-24-2005, 12:56 PM
Also, like NBC pointed out, these companies, especially Sony, like to have a line of division between their high-end and low-end gear. They deliberately crow bar this divide to keep it open. They have little interest in customer benefits, only profits... someone should probably point out that the two can go hand in hand very well.

which is actually why I'm suprised that the HVX is supposed to be having all of these professional features. :o

Ralph Oshiro
09-24-2005, 10:56 PM
Actually, there finally is an announcement on a 1/2" cam: the Sony XDCAM-HD camera is 1/2". No mention of 24p though, nor of cost...I haven't heard that. Do you have a source on this information? Everything I've ever seen/heard from Sony was 2/3" CCDs for the current standard-definition, PDW-530, and 2/3" CCDs for the upcoming XDCAM-HD models. That just doesn't make any sense that Sony would introduce a 1/2" 16:9 XDCAM-HD product. I mean it would be GREAT if they did, but . . .

Was it maybe a 1/2" HD block camera you heard about?

Ralph Oshiro
09-24-2005, 11:00 PM
Well whaddya know . . .

XDCAM HD 1/2-inch type three-CCD camcorder PDW-F330 (http://www.sonybiz.net/^/templates/neutral_content_product.jsp&OID=171032)

I found my new camera!

MovieSwede
09-25-2005, 02:39 AM
But what will it cost?

at least it had 24p and 25p

mmm
09-25-2005, 03:23 PM
How much, how much?

What is the workflow with XDCAM HD too? Anyone used XDCAM?

Ralph Oshiro
09-25-2005, 05:36 PM
A post on dvinfo said about $25K with lens for the 1/2" XDCAM-HD. We have one standard-definition PDW-530 XDCAM (w/24p board) in-house at NBC that we're trying out. XDCAM-HD isn't out yet, and final data rates, specs, I don't believe, have been defined yet. It will be, however, a new Sony-defined HD codec.

Walter_Graff
09-25-2005, 05:51 PM
http://www.satexpo.it/en/news/hd.php?c=56245

Ralph Oshiro
09-25-2005, 07:14 PM
http://www.satexpo.it/en/news/hd.php?c=56245FYI: That HDV Handycam in is NOT the picture of the PDW-F330 1/2" 3CCD XDCAM-HD camera.

Walter_Graff
09-25-2005, 07:54 PM
I see that. If it was it would be a mighty small blueray that fit in it. But the info I think is valid, no?

Ralph Oshiro
09-26-2005, 04:12 AM
I see that. If it was it would be a mighty small blueray that fit in it. But the info I think is valid, no?Sure. Just didn't want folks to get confused between ANOTHER Handycam-type HDV camera, and this lovely, full-size, shoulder-mount PDW-F330 XDCAM-HD camera.

videoteque73
09-26-2005, 09:33 AM
Returning to bigger CCDs, I think we will get more satisfaction from the digital cameras, than camcorders.

Last Canon camera, the Powershot S80, has a 1/1.8" CCD and can rec 1024x768 at 15fps and all for less than 600. And it a digital still camera, they weren't trying to make a motion picture camera...

"PowerShot S80 offers a movie recording capability that's new to digital cameras: XGA (Large) size, which is ideal for computer viewing. XGA mode records 1024 x 768 pixels (15 fps) - about twice the data of VGA - for extremely high quality films. Since PowerShot S80 gives you the option of taking any frame from your recorded movie and printing it on a single sheet (creating a still frame print), this high image quality for movies is a useful advantage."

Imagine what a camcorder they can if they try!!! Panasonic call Canon and make a nice one and big CMOS native resolution camcorder which recs directly in 3.5 serial ata drives or P2. With EOS lenses. What do we want more??