|
|
Posted by none on 01/10/06 04:52
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:19:07 GMT, "Steve Guidry"
<steveguidry@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Rick Merrill" <rickZERODOTmerrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gMKdnUYmFcfqnyLenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve Guidry wrote:
>>
>> > Well, yes, digital video has its limitations. But they are mostly the
>> > doings of the users than the fault of the fact that it's digital. I
>have
>> > seen plain ol' analog composite properly displayed on a broadcast-grade
>> > monitor look absolutely stunning. On the other hand, the best of the
>> > digital world runs rings around it. I was particularly impressed with
>the
>> > picture quality of the Rose Bowl the other night, and I watched it via
>> > DirecTV.
>> >
>> > As an aside, when we're shooting gigs with our truck, (pics at
>> > www.videoworksinc.com) I routinely have to laugh at the "digital video
>boys"
>> > who show up to do their coverage of the event. It's just hilarious to
>me
>> > when they're so surprised when their XL/TRV/BR-DV something or other
>doesn't
>> > match up to the quality of my 10-year-old Sony 2/3" broadcast cameras.
>And
>> > these guys are supposedly "in the biz".
>>
>> So you're saying Size DOES matter!
>>
>
>
>Well, that's what the ladies tell me . . . . <<GG>>
>
>But seriously, a 2/3" chip has twice the imaging area of a 1/3" chip, right
>?
>
>NO ! It has 4 times the imaging area. To illustrate : Draw a square.
>That represents the relative size of the 2/3" chip's imaging area. Then
>draw a diagonal line from one corner to the opposite corner. Next, mark the
>center of this diagonal line. From that center point, draw lines to the
>left side, and to the bottom. That small square is the relative size of the
>1/3" chip. A camera with 1/4" chips is even smaller.
>
>On the flip side, I'm prepared to concede (or at least argue to a stalemate
>the fact that today's pro-sumer camera electronic signal enhancements are
>superior to those of broadcast cameras of 10 years ago. But, it's just
>unreasonable (and wrong) to think that those enhancements are able to
>overcome this disparity.
>
>If anyone doubts this, just find someone with a "big boy" camera and
>compare.
>
>Steve
>
>
RIGHT! I have a number of old 3 tube and 3 chip dinosaurs that produce
a much better image than many of the tiny chipped offerings of today.
(DXC 3000, Panasonic WV-777)
To be fair they are a pain to use in field use, requiring much more
light as well as tons more juice. But once you've gotten them set up,
powered and the scene properly lit you get much more for your buck.( I
run them into av/dv port on my minidv camera or one of my full size
dockable DVpro decks and get the best of bothworlds.)
It's a pity that the makers haven't taken the "big boy"(or old school
if you prefer) market more to heart and offered a large chip dv camera
for those of use who would be willing to tolerate a bit more weight
and size just to get a cleaner image.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|