Is there significant difference between 1 CCD and 3CCD playback?

[bruceb3]

I have a Sony 57" HD tv. I want to buy a camcorder. It's a toss up between a Panasonic PVGS 59 with 1 CCD and a Panasonic PVGS 300 with 3 CCD's. Will I notice a big difference between the playback on my big screen tv between the two? As you all probably know the GS 300 is $200.- more than the GS 59 and I don't want to spend that much more if I can hardly notice the difference. Thanks in advance!

[JohnnyMalaria]

I can't comment on the specific camcorders but I have a 3CCD Sony camcorder and a 1CCD. The 3 CCD blows the 1 CCD away even on a modest 27" CRT TV.

For $200 (compared to what you must have already spent!), it's a no brainer - 3CCD. (If the difference were >$500, I might think twice).

John.

[lenti_75]

the ideea is this:

bigger ccd is better.

3 small ccd are worse than 1 big ccd, no matter what.

always look at the size, 3-1/6" ccd's are worse than 1-1/3" ccd, that is a fact,

in your case, they have the same size, then 3 ccd is better than 1.

what you buy, is up to you.

[JohnnyMalaria]

the ideea is this:

bigger ccd is better.

3 small ccd are worse than 1 big ccd, no matter what.

always look at the size, 3-1/6" ccd's are worse than 1-1/3" ccd, that is a fact,

in your case, they have the same size, then 3 ccd is better than 1.

what you buy, is up to you.

Not necessarily true - it depends on your application. For low light levels, larger CCDs are beneficial. If low light levels aren't an issue, 3 smaller CCDs for each color component will often be better than 1 large CCD that is "masked" to generate 3 colors.

And it depends on the rest of the camcorder's electronics.

[terjeber]

the ideea is this:

bigger ccd is better.

3 small ccd are worse than 1 big ccd, no matter what.

always look at the size, 3-1/6" ccd's are worse than 1-1/3" ccd, that is a fact,

As was pointed out before, this isn't true. 3 1/6" CCDs will have far better color reproduction than 1 1/3" CCD, while the 1/3" CCD will have far better low-light performance than the 3 1/6" CCDs.

So, which is better depends on your usage. If you spend most of your time filming outside in daylight, or with good light sources, your 3 CCD camcorder will (generally) produce a better picture than your 1 CCD camcorder.

With the two Panasonics, you will find that the picture quality improves significantly with the extra $200.

Note that resolution will not be better (or worse) with either. Resolution is fixed. When displayed on a large HD TV, SD resolution video (which both of your camcorders use) often looks really bad.

[edDV]

Issue 1: CCD size comparison is only relevant to current generation products. An older large CCD may perform below current smaller CCD. Read the reviews from standarized tests.

Issue 2: In the current generation for single CCD, a larger CCD will gather more light from the same cheap ass $20-200 lens. Baseball game TV broadcasters use $25-40,000 lenses for example. Those are also the size of a steamer trunk. Everything is a compromize.

Note: this only affects monochrome. That single CCD must be filtered for GBR. Green gets favored because it contributes more to Y (luminance or monochrome). R and B get scraficed (noisy and blocky).

Issue 3: 3xCCD builds Y, U and V from all three RGB color components. The overall picture is superior with adequate light but will degrade to noise in low light in situations where a single CCD of equiv. lens, and price range may still have an entact mostly monochrome image.

Issue 4: Your 50" HDTV is a microscope for SD video flaws. Consumer HDV camcorders aren't necessarily much better overall because they trade compression for resolution. Compressor preformance depends on exposure and a stable camera mount (i.e. Tripod). Performance mileage will vary mostly on money paid for the camcorder. But note that more expensive usually means bulky and battery hungry.

Bottom line: Best picture will result from an expensive 3xCCD HDV camcorder lighted for proper exposure and mounted on a tripod with a big battery to keep it going. Editing a HDV tape is another set of compromises.

[cosmin]

Consumer HDV camcorders aren't necessarily much better overall because they trade compression for resolution.

This is partially but not quite entirely true. HDV uses a more sophisticated compression method (MPEG-2 with short GOPs) than MiniDV (which is a dedicated, I-only method). HDV compression is, therefore, more efficient in terms of rate-distortion; specifically, you gain extra resolution at the cost of introducing compression artifacts, but you get a little more than what you lose, due to HDV's more efficient compression.

There is no free lunch, though. HDV's more efficient compression is more computation-intensive, so the gain comes at the price of a more intense battery consumption.

Compressor preformance depends on exposure and a stable camera mount (i.e. Tripod).

In theory, the stability of the camera is irrelevant to MiniDV compression (which, again, is I-only), but is definitely important for HDV. I wouldn't buy a HDV camera without a good (preferably optical) image stabilizer.

[edDV]

Compressor preformance depends on exposure and a stable camera mount (i.e. Tripod).

In theory, the stability of the camera is irrelevant to MiniDV compression (which, again, is I-only), but is definitely important for HDV. I wouldn't buy a HDV camera without a good (preferably optical) image stabilizer.

This is true during camera DV compression but not when DV meets the MPeg2 encoder during post production. Stable DV compresses to DVD Mpeg2 much better (higher PQ) than hand held or DV video with excessive pans or zooms.