alaskacameradude
Veteran
What I am trying to get at, and it is all speculation on all fronts, is that the mp numbers are marketing bs. There has been much speculation that the famous f3 chip is not really 3.4 mp pixels but rather photosites which can also be called pixels. These photo sites are made up of 4 actual on silicone pixels in a diagonal rgbg pattern. This results in a 16x9 effective area of roughly 14mp on a 16mp 3x2 chip. You need this much detail to get true 10 bit 444 color space that the f3 is capable of.
Now there is no question that the $15k F3 has better processing than the $5K fs100 which is likely better again than the $1500 vg20, but the differences are much closer than they were just a few years ago. This is as big of a watershed as when the original vx1000 mini dv, put a lot of $50,000 betacams out of work because the average end viewer could not tell the difference. Now of course productions with money will use higher end equipment, because it is more appropriate to the work conditions, but there is no reason why an indie filmmaker with talent and no money need to step up to the next level, and still be able to produce a product that is more than watchable.
rant aside it may very well be the same chip design, but we will never know because sony won't tell us. 16mp plays in the consumer market, 3.4 for pro video. The true video only cams probably have the olpf to go with it, among other things, but panasonic managed to work some mojo with the GH2 chip, and I have no doubt that if they really want to take the consumer convergence market, sony has the resources to do it.
Ok, tell me if I have this straight, cause I am trying to understand here. Your speculation, is that the VG20 chip and the F3 chip may be 'very similar' if not the same, because the F3 chip is
just calling a 'group' of 4 photosites, a pixel? What I am wondering, is if this is true, would it be possible for the F3 to take 16MP stills? I mean it obviously is NOT possible right now,
but would it be possible in theory? In other words, how does this work....how does the VG20 (assuming you are right) use the actual 'pixels' to get 16MP for stills, but then only use a
group of 4 'photosites' for a pixel for video?......and yet the F3 can't do this? To me, it doesn't make sense, that this would be the case, but I've certainly been wrong before. Not saying
you are wrong at all, I am just wondering.....In every case before, I have seen still cameras video be compromised, because they have to deal with the totally different requirements that still
folks have. But maybe technology has advanced to the point where this is not the case? I don't know, I guess we will see once the VG20 is released. I'd still put my money on 'motion' being
compromised to add still features, but after hearing what you are saying, I wouldn't bet as much as I would have before.....


