3ccd , pixels per ccd

[sahdf]

Hi.

a) If i remember correctly, the more pixels per ccd, better the image/video.

When i look in to the specifications, i see that it only shows 500K/ccd. So with the total of 500x3=approximately:1.5M per ccd.. If you look in to canon XL H1, it's ccd size:1.67M.. But when i read comparison pages, i see that ag-hvx200 does impress lots of people. What is this magic? Is it really better then XL H1's ccd size?

b) By the way, does shutter speed really really differ? XL H1: 1/4-1/15,000 s ag-hvx200: 1/4-1/2000 s. It's slower in ag-hvx200....
??

 

[Jim Carswell]

It's real magic is the fact that it shoots in 4:2:2 color space which the canon does not. The HVX also shoots 100 mbps as opposed to 25 for the canon. I'm sure there are specifications that others can point out... but these two mean a great deal to me.
Jim

 

[Barry_Green]

a) If i remember correctly, the more pixels per ccd, better the image/video.

No, usually the opposite. There are several factors that go into the quality of an image; those include resolution, sensitivity, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, etc. Of those, all of those but one are harmed by cramming more pixels onto a CCD. Only resolution benefits, all the others suffer.

The key is to make the pixels as big as possible, while using enough of them that you get adequate resolution. Making the pixels unnecessarily small will yield less-sensitive, grainier footage with no discernable benefit other than "bragging rights" to say "mine has more pixels than yours."

But when i read comparison pages, i see that ag-hvx200 does impress lots of people. What is this magic? Is it really better then XL H1's ccd size?

Look at the footage and determine for yourself.

b) By the way, does shutter speed really really differ? XL H1: 1/4-1/15,000 s ag-hvx200: 1/4-1/2000 s. It's slower in ag-hvx200....
??

There are very few circumstances where you'd want to use a shutter speed faster than 1/250, and in those cases 1/2000 should be plenty. Going to 1/15000 is nice for "bragging rights" again, but what does it actually benefit you? If you're trying to shoot something that's extremely fast-moving and you want to get very super-stroboscopic video (like the zombies in "28 Days Later" or something like that) then yes shorter exposure times can be of benefit. Or if you want to freeze water droplets or something like that, so instead of being a smooth smear of motion they're instead crystal-clear droplets. But you'd need an extraordinary amount of light to be able to take advantage of 1/15000. You'd need eight times as much light to shoot at 1/15000 than you would to shoot at 1/2000.

It's nice to have that option if you need it, but in most practical shooting circumstances it's likely never going to come into play.