[MacDV] Re: Modern single-chip cameras--MacDV Digest #1836

[Danny Grizzle]

On 1/2/03 4:10 PM, "Ted Langdell" <ted at tedlangdell.com> wrote:

> I'd argue lots with you about this paragraph...

>> The camera section of the camcorder is an entirely different story. With
>> single chip cameras, you have a consumer camera (no different than mom's old
>> VHS or Betamovie) combined with a DV tape recorder. This yields spectacular
>> recording of bad image quality.

My only intention was to thoroughly slander single chip cameras, not strive
for absolute engineering accuracy. The post was in response to a question
seeking basic orientation.

I would not agree that any 1 chip consumer DV camera of today equals or
comes remotely close to the performance of a $60,000 Ikegami of
yesteryear... you've got to be kidding. Those cameras made spectacular
images. The remarkable thing is how good inexpensive 3-CCD video cameras
have become.

The concept of latest & greatest has its limits. Even today, if you were to
seek out the ultimate in high fidelity audio, you would find a dedicated
group of adherents to analog vinyl records. Same type of case might be made
for pure, raw, full bandwidth, never compressed analog video. Last I
checked, D1 was still the reference in uncompressed NTSC digital video.

> I've shot stuff in bright sunlight with a single-chip Hi8mm camera that
> integrated quite well with sunlight footage shot by a Sony BVW-400 Beta SP
> camcorder.  The photog remarked how good it looked, and compared it
> favorably with his BetaSP footage.

Sorry, I don't believe this.

What I can believe is some news stringer might have said such a thing. Do
you know what the pay scale is for broadcast journalism? I've met plenty of
these guys I would not let touch my camera. I've also heaped praise a bit
unwarranted on amateurs to encourage those who show enthusiasm and promise.

> On the other hand... the content of the footage, and how well it's shot will
> sometimes render irrelevant what the footage was shot with.
> 
> Stuff I shot in 1997 with the same Hi8 Sony at a 5,000 acre night-time fire
> went to most major broadcast and cable networks.

The 1963 Zapruder film gets airtime to this day, but this is no case for
general use of Standard 8mm film cameras as a primary acquisition format.

I don't doubt you have done great things with Hi8 -- but the credit is
yours, no thanks to the video format. A definitive shot of an important
event beats technically excellent missed opportunities any day. Or as Mark
Twain said about using the right word at the right time, "It's the
difference between lightening and a lightening bug."

A compelling story is a compelling story. Nobody asks make and model of
cameras which caught airplanes hitting towers on 9-11.

This thread started as an inquiry about blowing DV to 35mm for theatrical
release, and degraded to limitations of DV from there. I stand by my
recommendation of 3-CCD video cameras for serious work.

BTW - in a strange way, I agree with the premise of 1-CCD cameras being
theoretically superior to 3-CCD cameras. Absence of an optical block, for
one thing, and compatibility with standard still & motion picture camera
lenses, which can save thousands of dollars on optics. Perhaps someday the
megapixel imager madness being funded by digital still camera R&D will
evolve into a low cost single-chip video design that is superior to any
3-CCD alternative*.

Even if one of the currently proposed HD video formats sticks as an
exhibition medium, I hope to someday see that acquisition resolution is a
multiple of the distribution format. Perhaps the new Foveon imager or
something like it will play a role. Just as HD cameras of today produce
superior SD NTSC, I think there is big benefit in acquisition and post at
higher resolutions.

*On a practical level today, the Canon Optura consumer 1-CCD video camera
has an imager of higher resolution than NTSC, and downsamples in camera
before recording to DV... this concept could get very interesting, in
competition with conventional 3-CCD, or if it evolves into HD recording. It
might also be useful for improved combo 16:9 and 4:3 performance in a single
camera, useful digital zooming, etc.

Danny Grizzle