Pixel Count of CCDs for the last time maybe?

Back in December, I guessed that the native pixel count was 960x540, BUT in looking over the different parts of the models and images, I'm leaning toward 960x720.

As for the T-Shirt, which is funny, 691,200 pixels isn't exactly correct. Given the offset of the CCDs, it's 691,200 x 2 = 1,382,400 separate pixels. ;)

This is less than Canon's 1,555,200 pixels, BUT the difference isn't that much, only 12.5% more on the Canon. Still, it is more than JVC's 921,600 pixels. All of this may not matter much, when you compare Canon's resolution to JVC's resolution, the pixel count is higher for the Canon, BUT the difference in resolved detail isn't that great.


The bottom line is that all (Sony, Canon, JVC, and yes Panasonic) 1/3" CCD HD cameras do 720 detail very well, but can't pull all the 1080 detail that a 2/3" CCD can. Still, after seeing the 720p from the JVC on the big screen, I feel that the 720 detail limit for 1/3" CCDs is no big deal.



Bob Diaz
 
Ya! Ya! But wth is this? Given the offset of the CCDs? Separate pixels?

You the tech guys, you must think that all of us we speak your language.. :)
 
I'm just sayin' -- screw the tech talk, go look at the wolves footage. That should answer a few questions about whether the HVX is "good enough", regardless of what the pixel count is! :)
 
Barry_Green said:
I'm just sayin' -- screw the tech talk, go look at the wolves footage. That should answer a few questions about whether the HVX is "good enough", regardless of what the pixel count is! :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but that's why footage is better than numbers and info is better than none. :)
 
Yes. Everyone check out the wolves footage. And then stick the ccd talk where the sun don't shine. Great footage. :)
 
Emanuel said:
Sorry but as non-techie dvxuser.com member, I'm lost...what does it mean?
Click to expand...


The key point is that the HVX-200's image is very good.
We can stop there and really that's all one needs to know.

For those who wish to know why...

My personal belief is that the CCDs are 960h x 720v. Remember, this is my best guess and I could be wrong. Assume that the number is correct... 960 x 720 = 691,200 pixels. Think of a pixel as a point of light in the image. The more points of light, the better the detail. There is a limit, but for now we'll ignore that.

Panasonic has 3 CCDs in the camera; one for Red Light, One for Blue Light, and One for Green Light. If all three CCDs were alligned exactly the same, there would be 960 x 720 or 691,200 pixels to receive the light.

BUT Panasonic has offset both the Red and Blue CCDs from the Green CCD. The center of each Red and Blue CCD is located where 4 corners of Green CCDs match. (I know there's a drawing of this, but I can't locate it right now.)

This pixel offset increases the effective number of points (pixels) where we pick up light by a factor of 2. This is why I said 691,200 pixels x 2 = 1,382,400 pixels.

Increasing the number of pixels improves the detail in the image, but this is only good UP TO A POINT. As far as I can tell, on a 1/3" CCD, increasing the number of pixels seems to max out at around 1.1 million. Beyond that, there are only slight gains in detail and major drops in sensitivity, low noise, and dynamic range.

Pixel offset give us the effect of a 1.3 million pixel input with 0.7 million CCDs. So, we are getting the best of both worlds. I'm sorry to drag on with the technical details, so let me put this in non-technical terms:

Panasonic's Pixel Offset = Great Looking Images!!!
​
Bob Diaz
 
Will someone please give this man a nobel peace prize for some similar award? I don't understand what he's talking about, so he must be brilliant (or insane)!
 
BobDiaz said:
My personal belief is that the CCDs are 960h x 720v.
Click to expand...
I thought that Jan Crittenden said that the CCDs aren't 960 x 720. Not that it matters all that much, but I vote for 1,024 x 768 or 1,080 x 810.
 
Last edited:
Shifting Imager

Shifting Imager

I am not sure if anyone else has posted this or not, as this is the first I have heard of it. I was reading the latest Video Systems Magazine in which it had a review of the HVX 200.

This review claimed that the actual CCD Imager physically shifts, to quote "...the camera's imager block physically compensates to maintain good lens performance." It goes on to claim that the HVX continously monitors the len's performance as the zoom and focus are adjusted it is constantly moving the imager to compensate. This allows the lens to avoid problems like "breathing while zooming", and other problems usually caused by cheaper optics.

I am guessing that this could cause some problems shooting a rez chart as it would be difficult to get the pixels correctly aligned with the chart if the CCD is actually moving. And also the lens could be a more limiting factor as Panasonic using this moving imager to try and compensate.

Again I could be understanding it wrong as many of you here know much more from an engineering perspective. I just thought I would throw this out there as I have not heard it mentioned before here or anywhere until i read this article.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK, all cameras with non-interchangeable lens use this "shifting imager" to focus.
I've wondered for years why these cameras have these infinitely rotating electronic focus rings, but making lenses without moving parts for focusing is cheaper, so it makes sense.
 
Thats interesting, and makes sense, just have never heard it before and the magazine article made it sound like it was something new and revolutionary.
 
BobDiaz said:
The key point is that the HVX-200's image is very good.
We can stop there and really that's all one needs to know.

For those who wish to know why...

My personal belief is that the CCDs are 960h x 720v. Remember, this is my best guess and I could be wrong. Assume that the number is correct... 960 x 720 = 691,200 pixels. Think of a pixel as a point of light in the image. The more points of light, the better the detail. There is a limit, but for now we'll ignore that.

Panasonic has 3 CCDs in the camera; one for Red Light, One for Blue Light, and One for Green Light. If all three CCDs were alligned exactly the same, there would be 960 x 720 or 691,200 pixels to receive the light.

BUT Panasonic has offset both the Red and Blue CCDs from the Green CCD. The center of each Red and Blue CCD is located where 4 corners of Green CCDs match. (I know there's a drawing of this, but I can't locate it right now.)

This pixel offset increases the effective number of points (pixels) where we pick up light by a factor of 2. This is why I said 691,200 pixels x 2 = 1,382,400 pixels.

Increasing the number of pixels improves the detail in the image, but this is only good UP TO A POINT. As far as I can tell, on a 1/3" CCD, increasing the number of pixels seems to max out at around 1.1 million. Beyond that, there are only slight gains in detail and major drops in sensitivity, low noise, and dynamic range.

Pixel offset give us the effect of a 1.3 million pixel input with 0.7 million CCDs. So, we are getting the best of both worlds. I'm sorry to drag on with the technical details, so let me put this in non-technical terms:

Panasonic's Pixel Offset = Great Looking Images!!!
​
Bob Diaz
Click to expand...
Regarding the other 1/3" CCD cams competitors, isn't there the same process, right?

BTW, thank you very much Bob. You are our teacher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top