Any guides on the megapixel?

drdespair wrote on 7/5/2003, 8:37 AM

Hello,

I am trying to make a decision on what miniDV camera to buy, my old panasonic which was giveing out great quality at 800k stoped sending video via the firewire.. the repair will cost about what a new camera costs, so I decided to upgrade, and now I am finding out that I dont know much about what available on the market, it seem with every step the still and the video camera are getting more and more integrated, one is saying its got 1.33 megapixels.. some are hitting 2 but I am now confused .. are we talking 2 megapixels for the video capture? Or are we talking 2 megapixels just for the stills.. I actualy bought a JVC 767 1.03 megapixel and the quality was worst then my 3 year old 800K Panasonic, I had to give it back, and get a bit more educated on whats out there.. any suggestions? I am not looking for expensive stuff, my budget is about 1,600 SFR.. which is I guess about 1,100 USD. Are there any guides out there that give a good explanation of whats what? Any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks!

Denis

Comments

Chienworks wrote on 7/5/2003, 9:05 AM

The megapixel rating is for stills only and has nothing to do with video at all.

drdespair wrote on 7/5/2003, 11:23 AM

So what then can effect the quality of video (other then having 3 CCDs?)

Its strange that they dont realy explain that you are not getting a better video camera when you have more megapixels.. :(

D.

Chienworks wrote on 7/5/2003, 11:57 AM

Don't expect a camera company to tell you anything that doesn't make their camera sound fantastic. ;)

sdmoore wrote on 7/5/2003, 12:56 PM

I've read that, for megapixel+ CCDs, although the pixel count goes up, the size of the CCD doesn't go up in proportion. The net effect is that the surface area of the pixels can be less than that of the 800K pixel CCD meaning less light falls on each pixel which certainly can't be good for low-light operation. I'm guessing it also means that the signal to noise ratio goes down - again not a good thing.

Scott

dvdude wrote on 7/5/2003, 2:56 PM

"So what then can effect the quality of video (other then having 3 CCDs?)"

Glass!

The lens is one of the most important factors when choosing any kind of imaging device.

Canon make their own lenses and are rather good at it.
Some of the Sony cameras use lenses from Zeiss
Some of the Panasonics use lenses from Leica.

Personally, I have the Panasonic 952 and am quite impressed with it overall. It's low light capabilities are bettered by others but that's way down the list of priorities for me anyway. I also have a Panasonic 910 - my first DV camera. Compared to the 3-chip 952, the quality isn't that great but then, it was among the first crop of DV cameras to hit the streets, actually costing me more than the 952 did. The good news is that it's been entirely reliable so unless I find a really compelling reason to change, my next cam is likely to be another Panasonic (I really like the AG-DVX100 right now...).

Personal experience dictates that I'd probably poke out both eyes before considering anything from JVC, particularly their consumer stuff.

Andy

farss wrote on 7/5/2003, 8:01 PM

I guess it really comes down to what you're looking for. At your price point there's a huge range of pretty much the same thing.
I assume you're looking for a PAL camera in which case the DVX100 is not going to be that interesting. Do you want to shoot 4:3 or 16:9?
If the latter then the critical issue is getting a camera with a 16:9 CCD. At the moment if thats the way you want to go then Sony's TRV80 looks pretty good. Haven't been able to get my hands on one yet as I'm only going off specs and reviews. Being able to take useable stills as well as video is still a plus and this camera should be able to do a decent job of the later.

With all the consumer cameras you are stuck with digital stabilizers which are a pain but I would imagine with a hihger res CCD this should work better despite the potential loss of low light performance as has ben pointed out.

swampler wrote on 7/5/2003, 8:13 PM

If you really want to take still photos, I would highly recommend getting a digital camera. If you rely on your video camera, you will be disappointed in the quality of the stills, and you won't be able to take stills while filming.