Re: Digital Video has its limitations

In message <mma9s1tp73i2e7lehvvkq0v8hkn8nmse59@xxxxxxx>, none <Vampyres@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes 
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:56:45 -0500, Rick Merrill
<rickZERODOTmerrill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

mv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Whilst as a rule of thumb it's true that the bigger the chip the better
the image, the argument breaks down when comparing early 2/3rd CCD's
with the latest HAD 1/3rd types.


That is EXACTLY what i wanted to know! Thank you.

'None' suggests that his old tube cameras and even a DX3000 make better
pictures than contemporary CCD's, I guess he must be comparing with
Samsungs 1/4 inch consumer DV's then? Even the original VX1000 with it's
three 1/3rd inch CCD's reveal the DX3000's antediluvian abilities. The
HAD CCD's used in cameras like the PD170 for example exceed the
capabilities of any 20 year old type. Currently the latest generation of
16x9 1/3rd inch Super HAD's as used in the Sony Z1 have closed the gap
with most of the older generation 2/3rd types (even surpassed in some
respects) to a point where only the most nit picking would care.

No, I have no contention that today's chipsets are better in many
respects than earlier larger one's.
The real problem in shrinking down chips is having to use all sorts of
enhancement technology to clean up the image which can often add noise
ect.. of it's own. Using those older larger chips allow for as little
image "doctoring" as possible.(yes some of the early chip cams did use
comb filtering but most of my early 3 chip cameras allow for the user
to turn that feature off.)
It's almost always better to do any tweaking post using SEG hardware
or as today in the digital domain.( internal camera electronics have
seldom ever matched up to the quality or adjustability of "post"
hardware.)
Brush up on chip technology, the smaller you make them the more noise
you tend to get.


Size continues to matter, but technological advancement matters more.
Looks like the CCD as we know it is about to pass into the technology
bin anyway, just as nones silly old tubes have. CMOS is the next
generation. Amongst other types, we have one of the new Sony A1's with a
single CMOS chip. If this is what a first generation CMOS type has to
offer from such a tiny cheap bit of equipment then the writing is
clearly on the wall.


Better read up on solid state imaging history, the cmos came first.
(We were using cmos sensors in spy sattelites as far back as the
70's.)
From what I gather the reason they've re-emerged is improvements in 
sensitivity/resolution and color fidelity and the simple fact that
they use much less energy to do the job.
As for tubes being silly, they still can and do produce a video image
that to many is much preferred.( my best broadcast tube camera
produced nearly 800 lines of resolution and that was 20 years ago.
And they have the nerve to call 850i "high def".)



High resolution at the front end of TV cameras is nothing new. Many people get confused by the specifications given with modern SD broadcast cameras that sometimes quote figures of over 900 lines (DVW790 for example). This of course has nothing to do with what's actually recorded to tape. No SD digital format can exceed 540 lines, whether it's a PD170 DVCAM or a DVW 790 Digi Beta. Clearly line resolution is not everything. Of all SD formats it's actually PVW Beta SP that's recorded the most lines to tape, using a Thompson studio camera multi cored to a Sony PVW2800 Beta SP, 720 lines were recorded to tape as counted on a standard test card. (1992, HTV UK Engineering evaluation tests. PAL)

The issue of CMOS technology being developed in the 70's is a non sequiter similar to saying that current digital technology is merely a development of the WWII Bletchly Park decoding computer made possible by Alan Turings invention of binary code in 1940. The current CMOS technology is more a by product of the bizarre partnership of Arriflex and Lockheed Martin in creating the next generation of 'Super HD' allegedly capable of 5,000 lines, equivalent to 35mm film.
--
John Lubran
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Digital Video has its limitations
    ... >> Whilst as a rule of thumb it's true that the bigger the chip the better ... >> 'None' suggests that his old tube cameras and even a DX3000 make better ... Brush up on chip technology, the smaller you make them the more noise ... >> single CMOS chip. ...
    (rec.video.production)
  • Re: 3 small CCD versus 1 larger CCD?
    ... Until very recently ALL professional and industrial color video cameras used ... The size of the chip (whether three chip or ... modern ultra-high resolution technology has made one-chip ...
    (rec.video.production)
  • Re: Astro CCDs still dragging their pixel feet
    ... pull the chip out and the thermal load dropped by 5 watts if i remember for a 2K*2K 15 um pixel chip. ... For normal cameras this type of housing is not a problem, since cooling is not done because the signal levels is so high that the noise is negligible. ... An added requirement due to the low signal levels is the need for low noise electronics to read out the signals. ... If you look at a histogram of the number of pixels verses the signal from those pixels, on normal images most of the pixels will have a high signal value. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • A new processor for VMS
    ... speeds. ... Lenslet founder and Chief Executive Officer Aviram Sariel told Reuters. ... "In five years we plan to shrink it to a single chip," project manager Asaf ... Tully said one issue is whether this technology can be produced in volume ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Astro CCDs still dragging their pixel feet
    ... Based on my experience at JPL, it is not that easy to attach a heat sink to a ... CCD or CMOS chip. ... opposite of deep sky images, or even planet images unless the planet covers more ... Compared to what everyday cameras need in order to generate images, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading