Frage von analyzer:
Question: For all discussions about film look is always the depth of a big topic. If you do not have access to solutions like HP adapter then it gets difficult. If I have understood correctly, the CCD is mainly the physical size limitation of the main reason for the high depth of the camcorder. Even more expensive devices never get beyond the 1 / 2 Inch Size. Only when a professional recorder's direction is 2 / 3 inches, but there is one already synonymous price areas ¬ 10,000 +.
So are digicam with good optics is no alternative? There are namely in the area 8Megpixel well equipment, and the powerful telephoto lenses on a 2 / 3 inch CCD have.
The recording is in almost all devices with 640 x 480, 30 fps. Would that be for a little TV movie projects no alternative?
During my research I have encountered mainly on the following 3 model, which might be of interest:
Samsung Digimax Pro815 - forthcoming in September 2005
Panasonic Lumix FZ30 - forthcoming in September 2005
SonyDSC F828 - already available
All 3 with 10-15x zoom, video recording capabilities, manual focus adjustment and 2 / 3 CCD. Theoretically, should the movies recorded with these cameras but considerably lower than the depth of field available with a 1 / 3 CCD MiniDV recorded images, right?
Gibt's experience in this area?
Antwort von Maxim:
The thing with the CCD size is true. But your idea sounds deceptively simple and too good to really work. It is not synonymous Do good, for the cameras, of course, no record Dv. In the short time I checked SonyDSC F828: MPEG-1. To cut quite badly, because of the nature of compression. Store individually instead of each picture, are calculated in part only the differences between several images. Which means that one can not cut all Frame accurate. Completely aside from that MPEG1 compressed anyway much too hard and the image quality is a serious film is not good. And: 640x480 / 30 fps is NTSC video specification. Not suitable for local television, and bad to combine with PAL video.
On the other hand people make videos synonymous with small cell phones. If just depends, what demands will be so.
Nevertheless, I find the subject extremely interesting. You can do with video cameras, video cameras, and with photos. Clear. But the mad wirds, if you can sit right with DV cameras synonymous small Motion JPEG movies (!!!) on an extra memory card (eg the newly introduced Canon MVX4i). I think, because it would be better to concentrate the development efforts on more important things.
Incidentally, anyone know why the CCDs have to be as small as "" in DV cameras? Cost? Place?
/ Maxim
If I have understood correctly, the CCD is mainly the physical size limitation of the main reason for the high depth of the camcorder. Even more expensive devices never get beyond the 1 / 2 Inch Size. Only when a professional recorder's direction is 2 / 3 inches, but there is one already synonymous price areas ¬ 10,000 +.
So are digicam with good optics is no alternative? There are namely in the area 8Megpixel well equipment, and the powerful telephoto lenses on a 2 / 3 inch CCD have. The recording is in almost all devices with 640 x 480, 30 fps. Would that be for a little TV movie projects no alternative?
Antwort von Markus:
Hello,
with DV camcorders come to me two ways to minimize the depth of field:
1. Aperture open and work in the telephoto range. The aperture can be easily influenced by neutral density filter to work but in the tele area) is not always possible (eg in rooms.
2. The use of an expensive special lens.
Related links:
Graufilter
Wegen offener Aperture Aufnahmen with z.B. 1/500 sec. => Probleme?
PS-Adapters:
ranzoomen: depth of field without strong?
Antwort von jay I:
Dear Mark,
if you have the same Aperture Same field, it is absolutely no preference whether one with wide angle or telephoto takes, because the depth of field remains the same ...
Love Greetings Jay I
Antwort von Forrest:
if you have the same Aperture Same field, it is absolutely no preference whether one with wide angle or telephoto takes, because the depth of field remains the same ... Nope, that's not true. Teligen one has much less depth of field.
Bye,
Christian
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
Forrest correctly, therefore there are in the Photo synonymous a depth of field (or depth of what you want!) table with different focal lengths, which shows how large the area before and after the object is.
The digicam Canon S 80 has still a better video resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels as AVI, but unfortunately only paltry 15 frames per second, motion gibts not.
The main processing and burning to CD is usually very difficult, digicam popular video formats are MPEG 1,2,4 AVI or Quicktime.
A customer of me still trying to cut with Quicktime cheap and bring the data to DVD. Even with my tip with the conversion with TMPGenc for MPEG 2, he has not yet been able to run on the data at least one DVD player. Well am not a PC Specific.
You have correctly identified it with the CCD 'size. The pixels have indeed irgenwo out.
At 1 / 6 (Einsteigervideocam's), the individual pixel size of approximately 2.35 microns (mid-distance between pixels) is to pixel center. In good phone it is the pixel size of only 1-1.5 microns at 2-3 million pixels.
Therefore, one can not always set equal to 2,3,4 million pixels (Stillimage video) phone, so it comes to the Göße of the CCD or CMOS chips used and the pixel size.
At the moment it's seen as a CMOS chip would prevail in the near future's
jvc gy-hd-100-test pictures The address of PS for the 35 mm would be www.pstechnik.de adapters
The only question is who can pay the price.
LG
January
Antwort von Hogar:
The question of why "prosumer" cameras do not have bigger chips, or other professional qualities have already made a lot of people. Producible, it would be safe - perhaps synonymous with affordable prices.
For example, some colleagues and I myself assume that the "prosumer" digital cameras are no extra "to be built too good" to allow both companies continue to sell their large professional cameras, and other extra accessories can be sold to the small little cameras professional have to use it.
But this is theory. A theory which I believe only too pleased.
I have already lived through it myself, which had an analog capture card with 250 ¬ expensive newer drivers at one time, only half of the functions. She produced broadcast-quality, but it was tied at one s.ein amateur video editing software. Before, you could use any program. Only the more expensive cards have now. Toll.
Hogar
