Camera "B" - my solution

Re: Camera "B" - my solution

Okay, I just read the article again. I did not see that anywhere. A visit to the Panasonic website shows me that not only do they not mention "true 16:9" recording or anything similar for the GS400, they don't mention that it can do 16:9 at all! You can bet if they had it, they'd be bragging on it.

I don't like to get all judgmental on this guy, but I've read a lot of camera (and other) reviews. This one, to be blunt, was... amateur. You can tell when someone thinks that "This is probably the best video quality you can buy, save for something like the GL2 or VX2100 (which cost a small fortune)," that he may not be the greatest expert on high-end cameras and their features.

He also mentioned that "at the top-center of the photo is the stereo zoom microphone. What that means it that as you zoom toward a subject, the microphone zooms in too. I'm not sure how that works, but it is cool."

Sorry, but anyone who thinks like that is just not a source you want to pay too much attention to when considering the professional useability of a piece of equipment.

I'm not raggin' on your camera. I've never met the GS400, but from the specs it looks pretty dang sweet for its price range. I mean, it even has XLR in and manual white balance!

But don't listen to this reviewer, especially when he claims it has a feature so high-end that the XL2 is $1500 more than the DVX almost just because it has it.
 
Re: Camera "B" - my solution

As has been discussed at length in the past, there are two ways to get "true" 16:9. One is to have a 16:9-shaped CCD. The other is to have a 4:3 megapixel CCD, and derive the video image from a 16:9-shaped patch off of that CCD.

The XL2 does not have 16:9 CCD's. It has a megapixel 4:3 CCD which it samples a 16:9 960x480 patch off of. (they just never bother to use the top and bottom 12.5%).

The JVC HD1 has a megapixel 4:3 CCD, and they get the high-def 16:9 image the same way as the XL2 does.

The upcoming Sony FX1 is the only 1/3" camera in the world that has an actual 16:9-shaped CCD.

The GS400 does 16:9 the same way the PDX-10, PV-DV953, and so many other megapixel cameras does it, the same way the XL2 and HD1 do it: sampling a 16:9-shaped patch off the 4:3 CCD.

It delivers full resolution in a 16:9 image. If the XL2 is "true" 16:9, then so is the GS400.

However, as far as resolution goes, the GS400 is an interlace-only camera, and as such it employs the line-pair summation and vertical detail blur common to all interlaced cameras. So its MAXIMUM resolution will be about 360 TV lines. Which is about the same resolution as a DVX in Squeeze Mode.
 
Re: Camera "B" - my solution

This must just be my thread in which to be wrong all over the place. But does the GS400 provide the same vertical resolution in 16:9 as it does in 4:3? I thought that was the thing that made the XL2 (and a few others) stand out: that it uses just as much vertical space on the CCD for 16:9 as it does for 4:3

I mean, if merely sampling a 16:9 space on a 4:3 CCD counts as "true 16:9," then almost every camera has true 16:9. The main difference between, say: the XL2 and the DVX is that the XL2 does not decrease its vertical resolution to get 16:9.

But if the GS400 really does have the same vertical resolution for 16:9 that it has for 4:3, I just have to ask, "Why don't I have that on my DVX?!" C'mon, Panasonic! Unless it was to avoid having 1/4-inch CCDs like the XL2.

Ryan
 
Re: Camera "B" - my solution

The GS400 provides the same vertical resolution in 4:3 as it does in 16:9 (as does the XL2).

People are thinking the XL2 is an advance -- in fact it's a limited version of what these other cameras have been doing for years.  The XL2 deliberately uses a smaller section of 4:3 than it otherwise had to.  I'm convinced they did it for marketing reasons, to make people think they were getting "more" when they switch to 16:9.  The reality is they're getting "less" when they switch to 4:3.  But hey, people seem to like it.

I mean, if merely sampling a 16:9 space on a 4:3 CCD counts as "true 16:9," then almost every camera has true 16:9.
Click to expand...
No, because until these megapixel-ccd sampling schemes came around, cameras did 16:9 the way the DVX does: by digital stretching.  That's how the XL1, GL1, GL2, VX2000, PD150, PD170, and DVX do it.  And that way loses vertical resolution, and is therefore classified as not being "native 16:9".

What these other cameras are doing is using a megapixel CCD, so when they sample a 16:9 patch off it, there are still enough pixels to provide full vertical and full horizontal resolution.

The downside is that they're using really tiny pixels, so low-light performance suffers, signal-to-noise ratio suffers, they're more prone to smearing, and they have less latitude.  But the one thing they do have is full vertical resolution.

The main difference between, say: the XL2 and the DVX is that the XL2 does not decrease its vertical resolution to get 16:9.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true.  But the same is also true of the GS400 and the other cameras we were talking about.

The DVX uses the largest pixels they could fit onto the CCD, giving ostensibly better low-light, better signal-to-noise, and better latitude.  The XL2 uses smaller pixels, although they're theoretically the biggest pixels they could get in their smaller sensor for the 75% target size (in 16:9 mode, the camera uses only about 75% of its total surface, but it has a grand total of 600 pixels vertically, so in that 75%-sized patch there are 960x480 pixels, enough to provide full resolution).  The XL2 has a smaller effective CCD size than the DVX, (in 16:9 it's basically a 1/3.3" CCD) but it is still delivers full vertical resolution.  The DVX doesn't.

But if the GS400 really does have the same vertical resolution for 16:9 that it has for 4:3, I just have to ask, "Why don't I have that on my DVX?!" C'mon, Panasonic!
Click to expand...
For all the reasons I listed above.  Panasonic wanted to deliver the best video quality, and megapixels sacrifice quality.  Now, Canon's had two full years to improve on the technology, and at the time Panasonic introduced the DVX, 16:9 was not nearly as prevalent as it is now.  So Canon has later technology which may have helped them overcome some of the problems that the other cameras have suffered from (namely, lousy low-light, smearing/flaring, and poorer latitude).  So I'd expect the next camera from Panasonic will certainly be better than the DVX, and probably better than the Canon.
 
Re: Camera "B" - my solution

Ok, having read all that - and playing with the new GS400 - I have to say - "GOT TO GET A ANAMORPHIC LENS" - it is next on the purchase list, right after the lighting kit arrives (sometime/end of this week)

And, to put my production in full control - I now have three units Camera "A", "B" and "C" - all GS400's - each in their own kit, each as described in the first post of this thread. I plan on running filter tests and resolution shots to see how far these little babies will go. And one more thing (letting the cat out of the bag) - all three units are black - as in beautiful black and black brushed metal. Makes them look all the more business like when everything is mounted on the tripods. For the money, and the experience, and the safety of having several complete camrea set-ups - I do not think it can be beat - today. 6 months/1 year down the road - who knows - but right now - it is the best that I have to work with.
 
Re: Camera "B" - my solution

Barry - thanks for the breakdown - you are among the most knowledgeable here - and with no ax to grind - which makes your input fantastic.

BY the way, I was aware that the vertical resolution remained the same in 16:9 mode - it was one of the reasosn that I chose this camera (and its two sisters). Considering that I was working with a Sony TRV350 before this - its like going from an Estes toy paper rocket to a NASA launch vehicle.

I know I will be faulted by some on these boards for not spending more and getting the DVX - but, I know, that the camera is just a tool. It's up to me, my talent and my efforts that will make the difference, not the equipment by itself. I just wanted to get as close to decent hardware as possible without bankrupting myself and my family. All the rest will be sweat and effort.

Thanks again for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top