best camcorder sensor image
Doug
I just bought a Sony HDRPJ260V. Manual says it has a 1/3.91 type, 4.2 mm sensor. 4.2 mm I hear means the diagonal of the image sensor. A Canon HF R300 camcorder has a 1/4.85 sensor. How can I tell what the diagonal is (isn't this the important thing, surface area of the sensor, one with 2X area should be 2X as good all other factors equal)? Should these numbers be proportional i.e. 4.2/(1/3.91)=X/(1/4.85)?
Seems like the manufacturers have conspired to purposely give you info that means nothing to you...or give you useful info but then conspire to not tell you how to interpret it. This reminds me of the megapixel hype nonsense in mini digital cameras but in reverse (manufacturers found higher MP ratings sold more cameras but more pixels in same size sensor does NOT necessarily mean a better image).
Answer
Hi again, Doug:
The diagonal measurement on camcorder & camera sensors can sound a lot like the TV marketing hype used for television set sizes (also measured diagonally, to sound "bigger").
Just like raw Megapixels specifications, the sensor size specs are only useful to a certain point. There are other minutiae like individual pixel size (in microns), Bayer color filter design, CCD versus CMOS, etc. Larger sensors can capture more light, helping with low-light sensitivity without "noise artifacts". But individual manufacturer's design & circuitry can affect this "signal to noise" ratio, as well as image detail.
The actual tradition of the diagonal measurement spec for video sensors dates back to the days of Vidicon & Plumicon imaging tubes (which were round). These were measured by diameter (1/2", 2/3", etc.) which if you draw the rectangular TV frame on it is approximately the same as the box's diagonal size. What makes it even more confusing is the practice of "improper fractions" (e.g., 1/3.91", instead of 1/4" which --heaven forbid!-- is 0.09" smaller).
You can peruse the excellent Wikipedia chart listing common sensor sizes (both diagonal & HxW meansurements): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_sizes#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes One of the more illuminating (no pun intended) parts of the article text says,
"sensor areas... are proportional to the maximum possible collection
of light and image resolution [other things equal], but in practice are
not directly proportional to image noise or resolution due to other limitations."
You really have to look at 3rd party reviews (CNet, DP Review, Consumer Reports, etc.) to compare low-light image quality and lens/sensor image fidelity. Printed specs are a mere guideline, but you also have to "consider the source" when shopping.
hope this helps,
--Dennis C.
Â
Hi again, Doug:
The diagonal measurement on camcorder & camera sensors can sound a lot like the TV marketing hype used for television set sizes (also measured diagonally, to sound "bigger").
Just like raw Megapixels specifications, the sensor size specs are only useful to a certain point. There are other minutiae like individual pixel size (in microns), Bayer color filter design, CCD versus CMOS, etc. Larger sensors can capture more light, helping with low-light sensitivity without "noise artifacts". But individual manufacturer's design & circuitry can affect this "signal to noise" ratio, as well as image detail.
The actual tradition of the diagonal measurement spec for video sensors dates back to the days of Vidicon & Plumicon imaging tubes (which were round). These were measured by diameter (1/2", 2/3", etc.) which if you draw the rectangular TV frame on it is approximately the same as the box's diagonal size. What makes it even more confusing is the practice of "improper fractions" (e.g., 1/3.91", instead of 1/4" which --heaven forbid!-- is 0.09" smaller).
You can peruse the excellent Wikipedia chart listing common sensor sizes (both diagonal & HxW meansurements): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_sizes#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes One of the more illuminating (no pun intended) parts of the article text says,
"sensor areas... are proportional to the maximum possible collection
of light and image resolution [other things equal], but in practice are
not directly proportional to image noise or resolution due to other limitations."
You really have to look at 3rd party reviews (CNet, DP Review, Consumer Reports, etc.) to compare low-light image quality and lens/sensor image fidelity. Printed specs are a mere guideline, but you also have to "consider the source" when shopping.
hope this helps,
--Dennis C.
Â
What is the best camcorder choice for amateur filmmakers?
Eddie Maye
I enjoy making short films and currently use a kodak play-sport handheld camcorder. It is alright, but I could definitely improve my work with a higher quality camcorder. I could spend up to $500 dollars on a new camera. I'm not looking for anything professional grade, as I am aware that my budget is severely lacking. I want the camera to have a port for headphones and an external microphone. Any suggestion on what I should purchase?
Answer
The Vixia HF R200 is also one of the first entry-level devices in the VIXIA lineup to support 1920 x 1080 which translate to Full HD capabilities. This is because the it uses the newer Full HD CMOS Sensor that bumps the megapixel count to 3.28 so 1920 x 1080 images can be taken as well. It takes a few technologies that made their EOS DSLR cameras good to ensure that image quality is not sacrificed. In fact, it uses the same DIGIC DV III Image Processor that is found on the midrange VIXIA models so different tonal ranges are reproduced nicely including those tough blue and purple shades.
The Vixia HF R200 is also one of the first entry-level devices in the VIXIA lineup to support 1920 x 1080 which translate to Full HD capabilities. This is because the it uses the newer Full HD CMOS Sensor that bumps the megapixel count to 3.28 so 1920 x 1080 images can be taken as well. It takes a few technologies that made their EOS DSLR cameras good to ensure that image quality is not sacrificed. In fact, it uses the same DIGIC DV III Image Processor that is found on the midrange VIXIA models so different tonal ranges are reproduced nicely including those tough blue and purple shades.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment