HVX200 and HVR-V1: comparing dynamic range

[John Froton]

Where is dynamic range more crucial - Chips or Storage Format?

I think one of the biggest selling points for the HVX is the color space of DVCpro-HD format. It is a higher end format to record to as opposed to HDV However, in the case that the CMOS chips in the HVR-V1 are truly capable of an improved dynamic range over CCD chips, wouldn't the quality of the image coming from the chips be more fundamentally crucial to the image quality than the quality of the compression the format uses?

I know the bottom line is going to depend on the real world footage and how the two cameras compare to the naked eye but I am wondering if anyone else has any thought or comments on this type of a comparison between the two cameras.

I have had my mind set for quite some time on eventually purchasing the HVX200. Now I am wondering if working with HDV might be worthwhile after all.

 

[khmuse]

Dynamic range in itself isn't a great indicator. Consider that a video signal is not necessarily obligated to have a linear relationship between the values. A 4 bit system (only 16 levels) could span an 80 dB range (if each step were 5 dB) and a 10 bit system (1024 levels) could only span 60 dB with much finer step pitch.

What is needed to be know in order to compare is both the dynamic range (delta min vs. max) and the gradation size (step size), and the noise characteristics.

Signal to noise ratio will also play into the equation as you can have a greater dynamic range than the noise floor will practically allow. Here, the area of each individual sensor element will play dominate the noise performance. For any two sensors arrays of the same area, the one with the lower pixel count will generally have better noise performance and better sensitivity.

For me, there is no comparison between DVCPro and HDV. DVCPro is vastly superior.