Why you really want a 3-CCD camera.

[wkulecz]

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/index.html

This is comparing camcorders that are almost a 3:1 spread in price, but its a nice example of what you get for the extra dough. Real world scenes won't show quit so dramatic a difference.

I have the lowend TR7000 that was tested and I'm happy with it for casual use. Real world scenes have other factors (subject motion, camera shake, etc.) that mitigate the effect highlighted here by greatly reducing the effective resolution in the target.

But this is a nice illustration of why I think still cameras need 3-CCDs at 8Mpixel to equal 35mm film. And why I'm staying with my TR7000 until I can afford a pair of 3-CCD models.

--wally.

PS after a quick web price check the price spread between the TRV900 and bottom of the line D8 is closer to 4:1


[This message has been edited by wkulecz (edited 23 October 2000).]

[IM_Riktar]

Curiousity begs me to introduce the question of 3CCD analogue Hi-8 camcorders vs 1-chip digitals such as the TR7000 Sony. Does the 3-CCD design of a Hi-8 or SVHS camcorder exceed the picture quality of a single CCD digital camcorder? Since I am already into my G400 Marvel I am curious if purchasing a used 3-chip camcorder would be the way to go.

[wkulecz]

I've no real experience to offer, but based on all the "wear and tear" on the camcoder comments that come up when people discuss using the camcorder for "backup" or mastering analog from DV -- I'd surmise the camcorder mechanics are fragile enough that'd I'd not consider a used camcorder unless the price was throwaway low.
Someone in another thread has claimed a 1000 tape lifetime as "typical" before service is needed.

A 3-CCD analog camcorder shouldn't have the resolution induced color artifacts of a 1-chip model like the TR7000, but then you've got analog problems like dropouts, noise and limited chroma bandwidth to contend with.

IMHO, analog is dead unless you can prove your situation needs the full 4.2.2 YUV colorspace and that the normal analog problems won't net an inferior result.

--wally.

[jeff b]

The need for the colorspace, for me, only comes into play if I want to do bluescreen or color keyed types of overlays. Using miniDV, that kind of thing just doesn't work well at all. I think that Doc had at one time mentioned doing bluescreen and/or color keyed overlays using his Canon XL1 via the camcorder's real time comversion to analog, and capturing it raw onto the computer. That, of course, begs the question, "Does the colorspace change off of conversion to analog out of the camcorder? ...and how can
THAT happen?" It's one of the those things that makes me say, "hmmmm..."

Aside from that little item, my TRV900 has given me the ability to produce "home movies" for friends and family that always gets a big "WOW!" every time. The clarity and color is very nice, indeed!

Jeff B

[Dr Mordrid]

The DV colorspace issue is big for those of us who do a fair amount of compositing, unless you're using an RT-2000 which does a 4:4:4 conversion before compositing in a hardware compositing engine. Even then things like green/blue screens are not done in the hardware.

This makes having another setup with a capture card capable of doing decent YUV/YUY2/YCrCb captures and editing very useful.

Dr. Mordrid


[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 23 October 2000).]

[wkulecz]

Doc,
I'd like some more info on this color space thing.

If its a big deal, then DV would seem to be *the* problem independent of capture card since its color space is set when the DV is captured and compressed to tape. Analog capture of the DV output should only have the 4.1.1 or 4.2.0 colors available, nothing can restore them to the output -- that's why DV is "lossy compression".

As to color key effects, I've seen what should be reputable sources (Elite Video) claim you get best DV results by keying a "greenscreen" (the exact shade of which they happen to provide as backgrounds :-)

Bluescreen is known to work "best" with analog video (which Elite Video also sells).

Basically I don't see how analog captures of DV source will do anything to help a situation where colorspace is the problem. Perhaps this issue will keep analog camcorders a niche product, or demand a "better" varient of DV camcorders.

I think at "prosumer" price points you'd better hang on to your hi-end analog camcorders and capture setups if you do this kind of thing and a greenscreen don't fix it for DV!

Basically I don't understand how doing post capture things in 4:4:4 can help if the capture was 4:1:1 or 4:2:0 and the color was out of gamet in this reduced color space.


jeff b,
To people used to seeing VHS edited to VHS
as "home video" the digital edited output of my lowly TR7000 gets a big "WOW" everytime too!

But there is no doubt my next camcorder will be a 3-CCD model!

--wally.