HD or 3CCD

hi all,

i've been a professional photographer for a few years now and am now looking at branching into video.

i hope at some time in the not too distant future to be able to produce broadcast quality productions.

my question is, i'm told by some people that 3CCD technology is sufficient, but by others that i should be only looking at HD. obviously if i was loaded, i'd go for HD straight away, but budget not being that of the king of biveria (where!!??) if i can get away with a good quality 3CCD set up then that will suit me a lot better.

any helpful advice much appreciated.

thanks,

mark.

Well, first of all, you are comparing apples and chevrolets!

3CCD is not a format, but a technology. There are single CCD cameras and 3 CCD cameras.

As to formats, you can shoot SD (Standard Definition) or HD (High Definition). Cameras for SD and HD can be found with either Single chip or 3CCD design.

The 3CCD cameras are normally considered "better" and are also normally much more expensive.

How was that for not answering your question!

hi richard,

well, not bad at a nearly answer!!! the more i look into this video gear the more i realize i have a lot to learn. ok let me refrase,

will high end non HD gear produce broadcastable work? yes i take your point about CCD technology as i already understand that for instance the sony HC1 uses one CCD and the FX1 uses 3 CCDs and both are HD. i'm all for buying the best technology i can afford, but am not in the luxurious position to be able to spand whatever i like.

if you think i can gain broadcast standard from non HD then some model suggestions would be a long way towards a great answer

Well, we create broadcast TV every day, and most of it is not HD. OK, the 3 Superbowl spots we just finished are, but that is still the exception to the rule...

This is such a subjective industry. As a Video guy, I went through a period in the past where Avid was claiming to create "broadcast quality" and they were missing a couple lines of video. They still ended up getting the crap broadcast.

These days, as long as your video looks good, and is at least 720x480, it is considered broadcast wuality for NTSC delivery. Watch some cable... they step on our stuff so badly it looks like bad VHS by the time most people see it.

On the other end of the spectrum, although the spots We created for the Superbowl HD broadcast were created at 1080 24 psf, they were converted to 720P for CBS. Many will do the same.

The industry is very diverse. There are many markets. A LOT of reality TV is recorded on single chip DV cameras in standard def. I have even seen this video blown up for broadcast in HD.

Find your market, and spend according to both what is required of you and what you can afford.

There will always be something "better" you can buy if you just want to spend money!

Find your market, and spend according to both what is required of you and what you can afford.

 

There will always be something "better" you can buy if you just want to spend money!

Probally some of the best advice you will ever receive !

hi richard,

thanks for your time in posting this, most appreciated. yes i've been doing some research and HD really isn't right for me at the moment.

thanks again for your input, you've helped me save a lot of money!

regards,

mark

Just a thought. I'm making the move from a Sony TRV950 (3CCD: DV) to a Sony HVR-A1 (1CCD: DV, HDV, and DVCAM). I've agonized over this, but my logic is that the A1 will give me better quality DV (the FULL SD resolution at 16:9, not a compromise like the 950) and it will also give me a low price entry into the world of HDV and HD, which is where I think we are all going with this eventually. OK maybe not HDV camcorder format (I know scubadru is moving to Panasonic and DVCPRO HD) - but definitely to HDTV and HD/BluRay DVDs etc. I have already invested in a souped up post production set up to anticipate this (and DV post flys!)

Also, I have been v close to dive buddies' experiences with the whole FX1/Housing/WB/travel/excess baggage issues etc, and I've decided that a smaller foot print is going to suit my purposes better. I still haven't decided on the final housing I'm going for but potential HDV electronic White Balance issues (see shawnh thread) are definitely pushing me towards manual WB so I'm narrowing down to the EVO and the AquaVideo A1 housings....

I realise that with the A1 I will lose some low light and some picture quality at HD resolutions vs FX1, but I believe I'll be jumping a big leap up with the move to HDV. I also realise that this decision is not for everyone - the hard core of you seem to be putting up with the 'bigger scale' issues and going FX/Z1/Panasonic etc - but is there any major flaw in my arguments (eg better quality DV for SD DVDs etc?)

Cheers, Nick

Nick, any particular reason you are not considering the Gates or the Ikelite ? They both have mechanical access to MWB.

Good point Ron. I need to look at the Gates closely. I was recommended that today by my local Amphibico/Gates dealer but he didn't have one in stock - still waiting. My main needs for the A1 are:

Manual White Balance

Facility for LCD Monitor

Telemacro

Wide Lens coverage (as wide as possible!)

Dome Port - Glass, or non-coated acrylic that is easily fixed

Color Correction Filter (flip switch very much preferred)

Strong hood that doesn't clip video, and is strong enough for shark bumps

Manual and Autofocus toggle

Exposure gain

Not sure if Gates does all that, but will check. I have been told it's bulkier than the Evo, but they do make great housings. Have you had personal experience with their new A1 housing?

I've used Ikelite gear in the past and although I've been v happy with it for 'fair weather diving', IMHO I don't think it would be great for the more rugged trips. I would be concerned about the brutal handling my housing may take on future dive trips with the likes of Jim Abernethy.

BTW made the plunge today and picked up my new A1. Boy it's small! Even smaller than my 950. Next to the FX1 it is a baby, so I'm already feeling the relief on my shoulders by comparision to my mates lugging their pro cameras plus housings. OK so the low light and total picture quailty isses vs FX1 are still scaring me, so now is the time for some serious field trials. Life is a compromise (or is that a win win depending on your needs?)

The Gates housing gives you all of what you are looking for. As for ports, I would take a look at the SWP25. The port is made by Fathom Imaging. It has glass optics, 110 degree fov, and full zoom through capability. Of course no vignetting and no distortion.

The Gates housing also has control of the assign button. The Expanded focus and telemacro are optional controls but fairly inexpensive as an add-on.

The only bad thing about the swp25 is that it is not field replaceable. Which means, if you scratch it badly enough, it will have to be shipped back to be repaired.

Gates also makes some very sturdy ports that will take a beating and the domes are field replaceable.

I hope this helped a little.

http://www.underwaterul.com

Great input thanks guys. I need to do more research. Field serviceable is desireable, but there are so many variables in this game .... I can take a couple of months to work the housing out, meanwhile, off to play with some HDV tapes now

Good luck with the video. Once you get used to it, you'll have to let everyone know what you think of the camera.

Hi all,

There is a wonderful answer to the much dicussed about low light argument...

Make sure you film in good light.

Or with decent lights

Has not failed me yet.

Dive safe

DeanB

Actually the HC1 and A1 use a CMOS sensor like a digital still camera. The FX1 does use 3 CCDs. I think you'll be happy with the A1.

Here's a low light shot http://67.122.16.97/lars/hc1/Lowlight.jpg It does pretty well but it's not an FX1.

Find your market, and spend according to both what is required of you and what you can afford.

 

There will always be something "better" you can buy if you just want to spend money!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Richard, as someone who came from film based still photojournalism in the 80's and 90's, the realm of digital imagery can seem overwhelming.

I do like your perspective regarding choosing your equipment and your target market and letting that define your choices for gear. Even though the industry is all abuzz about HD, the practicals right now don't seem to show a real advantage for at least another year when shooting underwater. Pathetic low light sensitivity (7 Lux???), no ability to show off the advantages of HD on a DVD, etc has me wondering if some jumped the gun too soon. I mean, you have to dump your standard halogen lights for HID just to shoot HD? OUCH!

With the recent announcement of flash based media HD cameras like the Sanyo VPC-HD1 has me intrigued due to size and weight while freediving. Epoque is set to release a housing for the camera in May and even though it isn't so called "TRUE" HD, it appears that it will be the shizzo for shooting HD while freediving...

I'm hoping to get my hands on one from Sanyo for review within the next couple of weeks to see how well it works and edit some clips in SONY Vegas to see how it handles the MPEG4 files...

The disadvantages of shooting HD now:

There are few HDTV's or HD computer monitors to show them on.

There is no HD deck yet, so the camcorder must be used for editing and showing. That's a lot of wear and tear on the tape drive.

There is a competing format war on HD DVD's, no burners yet, and players are outrageously expensive.

The advantage of shooting HD now:

The future is here, and any footage you might want to sell a year or so down the line had better be HD.

I voted with my wallet and purchased a Sony HC1, Gates housing, L&M HID lights.

Good one Eric,

Hows the set up going ???

Dive safe

DeanB

There is a lot of bad information being spread about HDV in this thread, obviously by those who neither shoot with HDV, or are even likely to have seen HDV displayed on an HDTV. "Pathetic low light sensitivity"? Come on Cliff, where do you get that from? "I mean, you have to dump your standard halogen lights for HID just to shoot HD?" Again, completely untrue. The video I shoot with FX1 (which I've owned since Nov. '04, and shot with underwater with for the last 12 mo.) completely blows away my last camera, a 4 lux Sony TRV-900. The video quality isn't even comparable, and I won an UW video contest with footage from that DV camera. At nearly 6 times the resolution as DV, HDV is the only thing you should even consider shooting now. Watching HDV footage on an HDTV, makes great looking DV footage look like it was shot with a web cam. Thats a fact. As far as distribution, the IOData/JVC Pro link player does an outstanding job of playing back HDV Native .m2t files burned on standard red laser DVD burners. Blue Ray burners and players, are going to ship by April, for about $500 each. First generation red laser DVD burners were $4,500. Why would anyone want to waste money on new SD equipment, instead of buying HD for just a little bit more? You will be limiting yourself with SD equipment. HDV downconverted to SD looks much better than footage shot in SD. Do what fits your budget, or project, but don't rely on bad information from people not familiar with the new technologies. HDV is here to stay.

This discussion is reminiscent of the impassioned arguments against digital stills about 5 years ago. HD is poised to do to SD what digi did to film. It's not a question of if, but when.

I agree with videodan that HD, at 4 times the resolution, blows away anything shot in SD. Looks like a movie by comparison.

As for low light, my HC1 is the little cousin of the FX1, with one cmos chip instead of three ccd's. Low light capability is acceptable (got nice footage of a moray in a hole without lights) and with a good set of lights...wow!

It's the same tech merry-go-round as computers and digicams. Everybody has to make their own decisions when to upgrade, but the longer one waits, the harder it will be to sell the old gear.