Home
Thursday, June 21, 2018
2:16:21 PM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Photography and Video

Forums | Photography and Video Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
  1 | 2 Next Page 
Holeh Crahp, i'ss a CCD cap'n
Master_Scythe 
20/6/08 12:29:35 PM
Titan

try using that thread title for 'searching' later in life, lol.

Just reading up about CCD's. Interesting, yet frustrating little beasties.

first, lets make sure I understand them: this is basically a little sensor much like a still camera that actually 'sees' and adjusts the filming lense and settings to suit what it sees... yes? Hopefully.

No mater how much I read, I come up with conflicting information (it seems a lot of people are confused as I am) so I turn to you.

My question is thus:

1/6" CCD

Or

1/8" CCD

Which is better? Assuming they're normal fractions, 1/6 would be yes? one part of six, of an inch, is bigger than one part of eight. yeah? Bigger = better?

Now the the actual complicated question:

I read one forum with someone who sounded like they understood exactly what they were on about, and they mentioned how a bigger pixel count doesnt necisarilly mean 'better' (even if comparing identical cameras in every other way)

As the pixels can be jammed up to close to each other, and result in the camera seeing a blurred image. Is this possible?

There are 2 cameras i can see that im looking at that have the same size CCD, but one uses 800k sensor, and one uses 1mp, hence wondering if there is truth to this 'cramming it in' theory.

Thank you all :)

Scythe.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



thesorehead 
20/6/08 2:03:12 PM
Guru

CCD stands for Charge Coupled Device (AFAIK). It is the actual sensor that sits behind the lens on many cameras of all kinds these days, from el-cheapo $100 digicams to giant optical telescopes.

The CCD takes light and converts it into an electrical charge. That is all. How that charge is interpreted, what gets done with the image that results, whether the camera "chooses" to refocus etc - this is all decided by a separate component based on the CCDs input.

1/6" > 1/8". Yes they're just normal fractions, so the 1/6" sensor is larger. The size of the sensor is a very important factor as it obviously affects how much light can be caught by each pixel.

If you have the same size sensor, one with more pixels than another, the one with less pixels (at these sizes, anyway) will potentially give a clearer picture. However, there are many factors - arguably the most important of which is lens. It doesn't matter how good your eyes are - if you're looking through foggy glasses, you won't see squat.

More details about the cameras?

-----
"Be Excellent to each other" - Bill and Ted

Don't feed the Trolls!!

"Consoles are toys. $250 is the most I will pay for a toy." - thesorehead

Master_Scythe 
20/6/08 2:29:02 PM
Titan

Sony SR45

Sony SR65

which i noticed DONT have the same size CCD, the 65 is bigger. and is 1mp

They're only like $50 apart assuming i buy an import (and i will, i cant afford a grand)

http://www.sony.com.au/dis/catalog/product.jsp?categoryId=30727

Same lense on each, but the 65 only has 25X optical, where the 45 has 40X

To be honest I think the 25X zoom will be enough, any more and i'll be shaky and shit, or so i assume.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



ne()phyte 
20/6/08 4:35:29 PM
Titan

Density of photosites on a CCD is crucial. The bigger the physical size of the CCD, the less densely packed the photosites need to be, and therefore the bigger they are.

A very simple analogy is:

A square of 10mX10m could potentially hold 100 square buckets at 1m in size, but another 10mX10m square holds 200 buckets at 0.5m in size.

The 1m bucket holds more water in each bucket, even though you've got more buckets in the second square (which actually hold less).

It's a very simple explanation but thats pretty much how CCD/CMOS sensors work. Higher density doesn't always equal better (this changes when you compare newer generation sensors to older generation sensors).

-----
WARNING! This post may contain traces of free speech, sarcasm, and/or humour - which may cause temporary stupidity or insanity. Please see your doctor if symptoms arise, or shut the frak up.

Master_Scythe 
20/6/08 4:40:48 PM
Titan

so would you consider 1/6" 1megapixel CCD OK for a standard definition camera?

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



The End 
20/6/08 5:59:48 PM
Hero
Titan


The size by itself is only part of the equation.

As mentioned before, the size of the photosites (and therefore density) is crucial.

A 1MP, 1/6" CCD is more than sharp enough for standard definition.

In SD video cameras, the resolution and size of a CCD isn't a big deal. You might experience less grain in low light than a smaller CCD. That's about it.

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

ne()phyte 
20/6/08 9:16:11 PM
Titan

Quote by Master_Scythe
so would you consider 1/6" 1megapixel CCD OK for a standard definition camera?



To be honest, I wouldn't be bothering with the sensor size in a video camera. I would be more concerned at how well it handled noise in low light situations, the quality of the lens (i.e. no chromatic aberrations or fuzzy edges), colour reproduction, sharpness, how well it dealt with bright to low to bright light transitions.

The reason for this is that a lot of modern generation video camera's employ various tricks to minimise the various problems that come from higher density sensors. Not only that, but the last thing you're going to be worrying about when playing back the video is what sensor size it was filmed on.


Edited by ne()phyte: 20/6/2008 9:17:37 PM

-----
WARNING! This post may contain traces of free speech, sarcasm, and/or humour - which may cause temporary stupidity or insanity. Please see your doctor if symptoms arise, or shut the frak up.

Master_Scythe 
21/6/08 1:16:18 AM
Titan

also thinking about the Samsung Hmx10

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=homeentertainment&type=camcorder&

seems to be nice.... and its 720p

one or the other.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



The End 
21/6/08 7:39:39 AM
Hero
Titan


Samsung make cheap nasty cameras. Avoid.

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

Master_Scythe 
21/6/08 3:35:20 PM
Titan

went in to day to get a deal on the demo model, and it was broken. lol.

point taken.

Sony standard def it is then :D

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



Athiril 
21/6/08 7:44:39 PM
Titan

sensitivity isn't a limited by current technology, its limited economically, cheap cameras will have small sensors, that need to be cheaply made, with poorer amplifiers, with less natively sensitive materials and slower lenses.

"Photosite" size has its biggest issue with resolving detail, tiny sensor with cheap lens = poor combination, especially given a massive zoom range, unless its one of them fangled liquid lenses which change element shapes, last i checked they only had it up to 3x zoom and they were for microlenses for camera phones, and also there was that liquid nnercury reflecting telescope, which can change focal lengths by spinning at different speeds, built for like 1/10th the cost of a glass mirror equivalent.

In any case, video cameras are quite low resolution, so the sensor should not out resolve the lens, however, its still interpolated, unless you have a 3-chip camera.

-----
Welcome to the eternal hell of my world, where it is Christmas, all year round.

Starring Jet Li as Santa Claus.

The End 
21/6/08 8:21:43 PM
Hero
Titan


Quote by Athiril
In any case, video cameras are quite low resolution, so the sensor should not out resolve the lens, however, its still interpolated, unless you have a 3-chip camera.




And even then, by the time it's recorded at 720x576, it's largely academic anyway!

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

Master_Scythe 
22/6/08 2:06:17 AM
Titan

thank you for the explaination, it makes perfect sense :)

the sony one im loking at has the larger CCD with more pixels, largest lense in the sub 600 dollar range (that i can find) and the lense itself is 'Carl Zeiss Lens Type: Vario-Tessar' which from what i can find, is highly rated.

The onyl down side is its an MPEG2 camera, thusly i lose a small ammount of quality in compression, but its not a lot IMO. the HDD's convenience far outweighs the quality loss.

pretty set on the Sony Sr65.

25X zoom should be enough shouldnt it??

oppinions on that camera?

thanks for all the CCD help

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



The End 
22/6/08 7:52:22 AM
Hero
Titan


Sony make lovely handycams. Canon tend to have out and out the best lenses, and Panasonic have their 3CCD tech, which is also great for reducing sensor noise, but Sony's cameras are a nice middle ground and certainly have the nicest handling/interfaces of the lot. They're a great point and shoot camera.

25X zoom is more than anyone can shoot handheld with any stability, so you should be fine. A massive zoom is only important if you're going to the footy or the zoo anyway.

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

Dark Maverik 
22/6/08 3:32:21 PM
Disciple

so canon lenses are considered better than Carl Zeiss Lenses?

-----
"All of man's greatest adventures started with a step in the wrong direction."
- Dark Maverik

ne()phyte 
22/6/08 6:23:22 PM
Titan

Depends on the application and the price point the gear is aimed at. Just because it has a Carl Zeiss lens doesn't make it the best glass.

-----
WARNING! This post may contain traces of free speech, sarcasm, and/or humour - which may cause temporary stupidity or insanity. Please see your doctor if symptoms arise, or shut the frak up.

The End 
22/6/08 6:52:20 PM
Hero
Titan


The 'Zeiss' lenses in Sony Handycams are actually made by Sony under license from Zeiss. As with any product, there are varying grades of quality, and the Zeiss lenses in Sony camcorders are not the same as the Zeiss lenses in professional photo gear or sniper scopes.

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

Athiril 
23/6/08 3:02:55 AM
Titan

Quote by The End
Quote by Athiril
In any case, video cameras are quite low resolution, so the sensor should not out resolve the lens, however, its still interpolated, unless you have a 3-chip camera.




And even then, by the time it's recorded at 720x576, it's largely academic anyway!



*head desks*

I cant believe you.

-----
Welcome to the eternal hell of my world, where it is Christmas, all year round.

Starring Jet Li as Santa Claus.

Master_Scythe 
23/6/08 10:51:32 AM
Titan

whatcha mean Athiril?

also, i dont think its academic.

the lense quality and size of CCD seem to have noticible eeffect on low light shooting on most cameras. IMO.

-----
4200+X2 939, ASUS A8N-SLI-D, Ati HD3850, 1gb,1tb total HDD, 109 DVD, LG DVD-rom.
Quote by Girvo
I've got a wicked tiny one that is ridiculously sensitive.



The End 
23/6/08 2:24:16 PM
Hero
Titan


Geez, lighten up!

It was more a dig at standard definition than anything. :P

Of course resolving power and input resolution are critical in overall image quality!

-----
The proof is in the pudding.

The pudding... of their doom.

  1 | 2  | Next Page 
Forums | Photography and Video