DVC30 Discontinued!

Interesting about the low light issue. I would suspect it was a processing issue and not a format issue? Or am I confusing the two. If you keep the same guts (CCd's etc) and add a range of recording format's, would the new camera, say shooting SD, have the same performance as the as the camera it replaced. Is it the HD that takes more light/umph or 16x9 chips or both?

Sorry to not get it, but I thought we would never go backwards on low light issues...
 
FatDaddy said:
Interesting about the low light issue. I would suspect it was a processing issue and not a format issue?
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant to the recording format, it has to do with the tiny size of the pixels on an HD sensor. The more pixels you cram into the same physical space, the tinier they must be, and the smaller they are the less light-sensitive they are.

If you keep the same guts (CCd's etc) and add a range of recording format's, would the new camera, say shooting SD, have the same performance as the as the camera it replaced. [/quote]
Well, no, because you wouldn't keep the same CCDs in most cases. But to answer your question a different way, an HVX is the same sensitivity in SD as it is in HD. However it's a full stop slower than the DVX.

Sony's new FX7 is reported to have the same pixel count as the camera it's replacing, the FX1. However, the FX7 has 1/4" chips, vs. 1/3" chips in the FX1, which means it has smaller pixels, and smaller pixels = less sensitivity, and according to Sony the FX7 is about 1 stop less sensitive than the FX1 (but there's another big factor at work there too, which is the changeover from CCD to CMOS, so you can't take that example as entirely due solely to pixel size).

Is it the HD that takes more light/umph or 16x9 chips or both?
Click to expand...
Neither, it's pixel size. More pixels = worse video performance across the board. Worse sensitivity, worse dynamic range, more noise. The only thing smaller pixels buys you is resolution, at the expense of all the other categories. Bigger pixels = better sensitivity, better noise, better dynamic range, but perhaps lower resolution.

Sorry to not get it, but I thought we would never go backwards on low light issues...
Click to expand...
Then you missed out on the whole first crop of HD cameras. FX1 is about 2 stops slower than the PD170, HVX is a stop slower than the DVX (and 2 stops slower when comparing in interlaced mode), XLH1 is at least 1 stop slower than XL2. And with the FX7 they're getting slower still.
 
Well, I've always been tempted to buy a DVC30 if ONLY for its low-light infra red imaging capabilities. I would bet you could lens some pretty artsy/provocative stuff with that IR capability. Should I buy one now or wait? Do you think Panasonic will eliminate their only IR-capable produt in their product line? Will they be so bold as to introduce another 1/4" 3CCD product with IR capability, but with native 16:9 CCDs?
 
Thanks Barry. I get it.

So it seems, as camera's move to HD and keep the same physical size and resonable cost, we will not see low light matching SD until technology improvements in regards to CCD's etc.. Which maybe a few years away?
 
FatDaddy said:
As I think about it, the question is "Are we maxed out with 1/3" chips?"
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "maxed out"?

There are problems with optics when you get to high-def on 1/3" chips. Canon crammed 1440x1080 pixels onto a 1/3" chip, which is probably about as dense as 960x1080 on a 1/4" chip, and I would imagine that's probably as dense as we're going to see. You start running into problems related to the wavelength of light at that point; in fact the Canon's smallest iris is f/9.5 because if you close the lens down any further you take massive hits in resolution. On the HVX you can end up dropping over 30% of your resolution if you close the iris down all the way (and the HVX has lots bigger pixels than the Canon does!) The Sony has a menu item where you can limit the smallest iris to f/4 or f/5.6. Stop down any further and you'll stand a pretty good chance of ruining your picture because it'll get very very soft due to diffraction.

I'm surprised we're even seeing a 1/4" HD camera, I thought 1/3" would probably be as small as they'd go. Especially when the tiny HC1 and HC3 showed up with 1/3" CMOS sensors, I figured that was the smallest the chips could get, but I guess Sony has found a way to make 'em even smaller.
 
If Panasonic comes up with improved gain circuitry, it'll definitely make their cameras more useful in low light situations. I've heard people say that although the Sony FX1 is two stops less sensitive, it's a better low light cam (than the DVX) because you can USE the gain--it's so clean, whereas with the Panasonic any gain equals noise. I've not seen this comparison myself.

I, for one, hope they don't ditch the tape transport but make it like the HVX200 with both tape and cards. AVC-HD sounds like the worst thing to edit right now, and while things are being brought to market to ease this, many of us could be happily shooting with what will essentially be a 16:9 DVX.

I've recently read speculation that Panasonic will probably announce a prosumer AVC-HD (AVC-HD DVX/ HVX100?) at CES in January with a release date in March. I was really hoping for something...like NOW. I hope this press release is what we're waiting for. When is it going to take place?
 
Looks like a used DVX-100b for me. Really like the Panasonic, will take a look a Sony and Canon, but can't go wrong for another year or so with a 100b.
 
i have an AG-DVC30 and really havnt used a lot... since im an Editor.

anyweys.. who wants to buy it.

any offers?

t3ddy94123 on YM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top