Frage von ennui:
Are there really still cheaper HD cameras with CCD-chip, or just this expensive Panasonic model? After I had several times more expensive cameras in zip pans or views from a train window, bad rolling shutter problems and warped image content, I would really like to synonymous one (HD) Camera that such problems do not have and with which you can film it all, So as before. Or I am better because one of the good MiniDV cameras and bubble on the Picture? 720p with bad or good sharp RS inflated MiniDV adopt so may not be as much - or? NV-GS500 eg.
And what is it that today CCDs so "out" are just cheap s.den CMOS prices? And why was better than CCD 3CCD (natural color reproduction, "agreed so synonymous), but now you are back in one chip? If the CMOS sensors so much better that you no longer need? Panasonic offers so synonymous 3MOS models to - what brings it, see, for example with the Color performanceder 7D, which is quite good? And what is more exotic with chips? What's in the future?
Antwort von Harald_123:
Are there really still cheaper HD cameras with CCD-chip, To my knowledge it is only the JVC GY-HM100. A "cheap" device that would support 1080p50 with CCD sensors, is not in sight. According to information of JVC at IBC 2010 next camcorder synonymous with (cheaper) CMOS sensors will be equipped.
I am satisfied with the way HM100. 1080p50 containing only missing unfortunately.
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Ennui
CCDs have several serious drawbacks. One of them is the fact that the extracted information must be pushed per Bildpukt by neighboring memory to output. This is a slow and lossy process. Slowly, of course, because every charge / discharge process takes time, but the next picture is already due for processing. The time for the entire charge transport is therefore limited to 40, and now to 20 ms.
Therefore, the time of the CCD pixels at increasing densities is synonymous over. The limiting factor is less possible number of light-sensitive areas, but rather the time for signal processing.
What kind of SD and its approx. 400 000 pixels was represented, no longer works in HD.
A sensor can not operate with an arbitrarily high clock rate, because with increasing frequency increases the heat of the sensor and thus the noise dramatically.
Running through the shift register until the pixel information is arrived s.Verstärker takes correspondingly long and takes with the number of pixels in the logical sum to me. For a 1.3 megapixel sensor with a clock speed of approx. 30 MHz is operated an average of 33ns for each pixel information.
This requires reading the entire sensor information: 33 x 1.3 million = 42.9 ms. Therefore, it was already used predominantly in HD 3-chip.
You could say the number of pixels and thus minimize the quality of the signal high.
Or, like JVC, the sensors and shared (usually half) worked separately and the results afterward reunited. So you could hold the clock low and edit still high prepayments pixels within a limited time. But this has limits and is visible in the picture behind synonymous.
JVC has made even both .... 3 chips and each still divided and processed in order of 6 A / D converter. Therefore, one can still synonymous s.relativ old camcorders (GY HD 100) s.Output a 50p signal tap in 4.2:2. And in an excellent quality!
In a HD sensor that implies that each CCD - Pixel signal average of one thousand times to be moved before it appears s.Output. The only issue is no time problems, but has synonymous qualitative disadvantages:
When transporting any cargo package also leaves a part of its electrons in the gate.
The following charge packet leaves too few electrons, but increases from the previous few synonymous again. Thus more electrons tunnel on top of the cargo packages, while others are lost. This effect is summed up of pixel to pixel.
The read out charge packets lose time with their original "look" and distort the signal that it was hoped to obtain.
Hence, these procedures do have their charm JVC in respect of the individual pixel quality, but only when it comes to the CCD, CMOS for no longer applies to that.
As far as only relating to CCD. All the other questions to be answered fairly exhaustive and is beyond posting this for sure, but there are many good reasons for other sensors.
Promising in this context, the MOS sensor, although strictly speaking, are all MOS sensors, (synonymous of the CCD), then the MOS sensors are different but in some, the important details of CMOS.
The price does not matter the way in CMOS because the sensors that are used for high-quality video, thus not used for mobile phones, are not different of the previous CCD.
Antwort von Harald_123:
The price does not matter the way in CMOS because the sensors that are used for high-quality video, thus not used for mobile phones, are not different of the previous CCD. Here I dare even to contradict you.
At IBC 2010, the JVC statement was very clear to the CCD technology for video is more expensive than CMOS.
And in January synonymous Livingston also says clearly that the CCD AG-HPX300 would have made much more expensive than with CMOS:
"The reality is that you can not get a 2M pixel imager in s.CCD for under $ 10,000, well s.least one that also includes the rest of the camera and recording. The only way to do it is with s.CMOS. This criticize or not, it is the reality. The beauty of the CMOS is that it is less expensive, more sensitive in low light, less power draw and s.the price point more resolution. "
In the comment there were:
"This program is s.instructional piece showing how to work with the Rolling Shutter attributes that are native to CMOS imagers, search s.Flash banding and skew."
Source.
Antwort von WoWu:
Harald,
that's not really worth discussion, because I think it's really secondary.
According to my information, the CMOS sensors are not demanding the same high-volume wafer-based manufacturing systems manufactured as common logic or memory chips, because already, the cells fail to be drastically smaller than for logic blocks and are not so different sensors.
Also contain CMOS devices because of the extra features significantly more silicon per pixel, and already there is drifting of the price.
But even if the block as the chip still einwenig should be cheaper, much more complex post-processing circuitry latest s.der loses a price difference.
Therefore, the price difference in our segment do not play the decisive role.
But I meet at the next NAB two wafer manufacturer and ask again decidedly.
As long as I have had it once left at the sitter and synonymous at the moment no more extensive details, because the pricing was really never my subject.
What to me the above quote of Jan Livingston can think of is, of course, that the aim of the event to justify a CMOS technology and was still synonymous .... from the marketing point of view I think such a statement did not stand up to the investigation.
But as I said, I have nothing concrete on hand.
Addendum:
I can think of at all, why should the basic prices really differ so much, CCD is also a MOSFed, such as MOS or CMOS likely, in the wafer manufacturing actually make no difference because they are all MOS types of identical technology, so all Feldefekttransistoren.
So it is already of so difficult to understand why there should ever price differences.
But the offense was great, I'm interested now synonymous times, because what is really it.
