Pixel Size in HVX-200 CCD's

R

rubiocesar83

Active member
Does any one knows what is the pixel size in the HVX-200 CCD's?...

I am prety sure that I read that info in this forum..
but I dont remember exactly where.

And By the way what is the pixel size for the DVX-100?

Thanks.

Cesar Rubio.
 
Last edited:
Not to offend anyone, but does it REALLY matter to anyone anymore? I for one just don't care. The camera does so much for me. To put it in perspective:

A Nissan Sentra SER SPEC-V has a 2.5Liter DOHC engine and churns out 190hp at 6K rpms. A Honda Civic Si has a 2.0Liter DOHC engine and churns out 197hp. By all means the Nissan's engine should smoke the Honda Si easily, yet for all of it's bulk and size, it can't touch the Si. Same applies to the HVX200.

Its competitors use the "high resolution" CCD ad-line over and over again. And again, who cares. Films like "28 Days Later", "Anniversary Party", "Hoop Dreams", "Personal Velocity", "Bamboozled", and "Timecode" were all shot on Standard Definition Mini-DV cameras like the XL-1, VX-1000, DSR-500, and the PD-150, and were screened in thousands of theatres across the U.S. and several more thousand across the world.......in 35mm. Very few critics came forward and said, "Well gee, that film just looked awful...I'll never watch another film shot on DV again." You never heard that. Look forward to the present. The HVX-200 is light years beyond those cameras...imagine where it goes from here.

Again, not to offend the technically inclined, but I thought I'd just share my two cents. Attack at will.
 
David:

Thanks for your responce....but I meant the size of each pixel.
I want to compare that of a 1/2 CCD with 9.9 micron pixel size.

In the Red Camera's Mysterium CMOS the pixel size is 29 sq.micron.
And that's why (theoretically) will have more than 66db signal
to noise ratio and more exposure latitude.

The larger the pixel the better..thats why the HVX-200 having half
pixel count of comparing 1/3 CCD HD cams..it handles better low light
situations.

That's it...I dont want to start a war of wich camera is better....
By the way.......mine is......a DVX-100....

Cesar Rubio.
 
Last edited:
Pixel size for an HVX would be something on the order of .005458mm x .005463mm. Which would give it an area of .0000298 mm.

Pixel size on a DVX is a guess but I'd guess .006mm x .0072mm, for an area of around .0000432mm.

By my calculations the RED would be .005398 x .005394, which would give it an area of .00002911. So smaller pixels than either the HVX or the DVX. But way bigger than the pixels in an XLH1, which are around .003639 x .002731 for an area of .000009940. But then you have to take into account that the others are all 3-CCD systems, whereas the RED pixels are monochrome through a bayer filter so each frame pixel needs to be sampled from multiple sensor pixels.

(and, cannes1979, I totally agree. We can geek out on numbers for all sorts of reasons, but if someone's basing a purchase decision on numbers instead of footage, well... I wonder if they have their priorities straight.)
 
Last edited:
cannes1979 said:
Not to offend anyone, but does it REALLY matter to anyone anymore? I for one just don't care. The camera does so much for me. To put it in perspective:

A Nissan Sentra SER SPEC-V has a 2.5Liter DOHC engine and churns out 190hp at 6K rpms. A Honda Civic Si has a 2.0Liter DOHC engine and churns out 197hp. By all means the Nissan's engine should smoke the Honda Si easily, yet for all of it's bulk and size, it can't touch the Si. Same applies to the HVX200.

Its competitors use the "high resolution" CCD ad-line over and over again. And again, who cares. Films like "28 Days Later", "Anniversary Party", "Hoop Dreams", "Personal Velocity", "Bamboozled", and "Timecode" were all shot on Standard Definition Mini-DV cameras like the XL-1, VX-1000, DSR-500, and the PD-150, and were screened in thousands of theatres across the U.S. and several more thousand across the world.......in 35mm. Very few critics came forward and said, "Well gee, that film just looked awful...I'll never watch another film shot on DV again." You never heard that. Look forward to the present. The HVX-200 is light years beyond those cameras...imagine where it goes from here.

Again, not to offend the technically inclined, but I thought I'd just share my two cents. Attack at will.
Click to expand...



I agree with most of what you say but on these forums such arguements are generally to defend the DVX/HVX but are forgotten when other cameras are challenged. I agree, resolution just needs to be "good enough" but the same is true of codecs, latitude, color, "mojo" etc. I dont know how many people say, "there is more to an image than resolution" then proceed to bag on HDV, or other cameras for having weaknesses in other areas. Bottom line, all the cameras in the classes being talked about are surely good enough.

One correction though, Hoop Dreams was released in 1994, 2 years before DV existed. It was shot mostly on Hi8.




ash =o)
 
The point is, we're all pretty sick of arguing numbers when we could instead be looking at footage.

There are factors that make an actual difference in what you can do with the product. If you want to argue variable frame rates against an interchangeable lens, then you've got a case. If you want to talk about a 9-hour battery life vs. 40 minutes, you've got a case. 60p vs. 30p? Fine. Interlaced 60i vs. progressive 24p? Sure. Those are all differences that will have a significant determination on how you use the product and what you can accomplish with it. But obsessing over the count of the pixels is tired, old, and ludicrous, especially when the results show that they all deliver basically comparable sharpness anyway, and certainly all within spitting distance of each other.
 
"And the Oscar for best picture goes to... wait we just got confirmed that the movie has been shot with to few pixels..."
 
I agree with all of you guys regarding the pixel count.

I own a Infocus X2 projector (SVGA= 800x600 px)
I also own a Infocus X3 projector (XGA= 1024x768 px.)

In both projectors a regular SD DVD played with a progressive
DVD player through the component cables looks the same in both..amazing.

They even surpass the HD TV's that I have seen in stores like Best Buy
and others playing HD video in their HD TV sets.

For capturing video we have learned the lesson that pixel count is
not everything, but compression codecs and medium of video adquisition
(Tape, HD's, P2 cards,etc.) play a significant part in the whole equation.

We have the example of Andromeda....SD DVX-100 cam with better
resolution than cameras with 768 x 1040 pxs. CCD's.

Even the HVX-200 like I said before performs better in low light
environments than other 1/3 HD camcorders.

I've read someplace that Panasonic stuck with that kind of
pixel count in the 1/3 CCD's in the HVX-200 for that reason.

I still think that PIXEL SIZE count for LOW LIGHT performance.

I rather have a SD camera with a less compressed codec and bigger
pixels than a HD cam with a high compression codec and smaller pixels.

Even in Mini-DV SD adquisition the compression ratio is 5:1... and then
when you take those 25 Mbts of video info and RE-COMPRESS another
3 times more to 8.3Mbts to burn a DVD...
you end up with a video footage compressed close to 16 TIMES....

And the compression ratios for TV transmition are worse......

Cesar Rubio.
 
cannes1979 said:
Not to offend anyone, but does it REALLY matter to anyone anymore? I for one just don't care. The camera does so much for me. To put it in perspective:

A Nissan Sentra SER SPEC-V has a 2.5Liter DOHC engine and churns out 190hp at 6K rpms. A Honda Civic Si has a 2.0Liter DOHC engine and churns out 197hp. By all means the Nissan's engine should smoke the Honda Si easily, yet for all of it's bulk and size, it can't touch the Si. Same applies to the HVX200.

Its competitors use the "high resolution" CCD ad-line over and over again. And again, who cares. Films like "28 Days Later", "Anniversary Party", "Hoop Dreams", "Personal Velocity", "Bamboozled", and "Timecode" were all shot on Standard Definition Mini-DV cameras like the XL-1, VX-1000, DSR-500, and the PD-150, and were screened in thousands of theatres across the U.S. and several more thousand across the world.......in 35mm. Very few critics came forward and said, "Well gee, that film just looked awful...I'll never watch another film shot on DV again." You never heard that. Look forward to the present. The HVX-200 is light years beyond those cameras...imagine where it goes from here.

Again, not to offend the technically inclined, but I thought I'd just share my two cents. Attack at will.
Click to expand...
Im going a quite bit off topic here, but since you brought it up.....


Where did you get your "specs" on the Se-R? Cause i don't know of anyone that claims the 2.5L gets 190Hp. At least not stock. What it DOES have is 175hp and 180ftlbs of Torque. Which of course is Nissan's claims and is not exactly what you get at the wheels. Thats closer to 144whp. It doesn't help Nissan that they use a heavy clutch system, and a balancer system, which also sucks out a few more ponies then necessary. But, thats what the aftermarket market is for....

I just had to counter that, considering that i own a SER Spec V. And the Si can't touch the low end torque of the SER. It will edge out for the win when it goes into steriod mode, but i still prefer the SER's muscle car personality. (not to mention the much lower price tag.) You really have to butcher the rpms to get those "Cordless Phone Engines" to go anywhere. Not practical for everyday city driving fun. IMO.

A few more factors to translate into your translation: Workflo - Personality, and Price tag - Price tag. :~)

EDIT: i can feel a thread lock comming.... lol! Don't worry thats all im going to say about that!
 
Is that really true ??????? I read numerous of times on this forum that the HVX has the poorest low light capabilities of all 1/3" HD cams? That is why I never understood the argument of Panasonic that they limited the pixcel count so they were able to make the pixels larger to improve the low light capability. However in practice it seems the the low light capabilty is not great at all. I hear a lot of people say on this forum " the HVX loves light"!!!!!! Maybe someone can explain me why the HVX loves light although the pixel size is largest compared to the competition?


rubiocesar83 said:
I agree with all of you guys regarding the pixel count.

Even the HVX-200 like I said before performs better in low light
environments than other 1/3 HD camcorders.

I've read someplace that Panasonic stuck with that kind of
pixel count in the 1/3 CCD's in the HVX-200 for that reason.

Cesar Rubio.
Click to expand...
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
Is that really true ??????? I read numerous of times on this forum that the HVX has the poorest low light capabilities of all 1/3" HD cams?
Click to expand...
You would have heard that from either misinformed people, or people who have not used both products. If you look at the actual sensitivity tests the HVX is the most sensitive of all the HD cameras.


However in practice it seems the the low light capabilty is not great at all.
Click to expand...
All the HD cameras have lousy low light performance. Their standard-def counterparts blow 'em all away.
 
Last edited:
Barry Green is right.
Some people say that the HVX-200 loves light...
and they are probably comparing it to the DVX-100.

Dont get me wrong ...the HVX-200 is a good camera...It has features that
not other camera has in its price range like be able to record in DVC PRO 50..
at 4:2:2 color sampling....unfortunatelly it does not record to tape in this mode.

I think if panasonic puts a larger CCD in the HVX-200...the RED camara
will face some fierce competition....but again that is the benefit of competition...

Thats why some people are saying that the RED camera will shake the market
when release.

The Big companies will have to respond with something similar in that price range....
....and prices will start to fall....

Tech up...prices down....thats what we want dont we?...

Cesar Rubio.

PD. I also own a nissan sentra with a 1.6L engine....
and for more than a week I have not been able to make it start
( I am an auto mechanic also)

For me it does not make a difference WHAT engine it has...
I only want one that RUNS!!.....
 
Barry:

I forgot to THANK YOU!.....
You've answered my question a few posts back...

I want to do this before the Nissan-Honda war begins...
and you will have not choice but to lock this thread...

Cesar Rubio.
 
I think the big thing we should be remembering is that the all the under-10k HD cameras are using the same size chips of many of their SD counterparts and smaller than many professional SD cameras (1/3). 1/3 chips just aren't designed for HD so really all the cameras kind of have to cheat to get an HD signal. The HVX does it through pixel shifting while the others do it by cramming more pixels onto the chips then they are really designed to handle.
 
In real world use the HVX is poor in low light. You can test the sensitivity with anything you like but compared to the Sony HDV stuff and the Canon XLH, the HVX just is not as good in low light. This is very obvious when you have to gain up to get an image. If you need a low light camera the HVX would not be the right choice. It is my opinion that it is the Panny color matrix and DVCproHD which are more of the issue than the camera itself.



ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top