Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Hi Dave
    Thanks!!
    I don't know if you need one but I do have a PDF version of the manual
    if you would like it for your manuals database?? I had to jump thru a fair amount of hoops to actually get one as the specs from Aussie dealers are a joke and they could not give me any information on the audio facilities. I eventually had to get Panny in South Africa to give me a link!!!

    PS: I also have Panny DVC15, 20 and 30 manuals in PDF if you need them

    Chris

  2. #12
    Administrator Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Te Awamutu, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,959
    Blog Entries
    79
    Absolutely, I'll take 'em all
    Can you email them to 2006_at_mediacollege_dot_com?
    Dave Owen
    MediaCollege.com

  3. #13
    Hi Nagar

    An interesting point with the MD10000 is that it's low-light performance actually outshines my GS500 (the 500 has 1.47" chips and the 10000 has only 1/6" chips)
    Aparently the 1/6" chips are more sensitive in low light because less effective pixels are used!! It has 3 x 540K total pixels but only 3 x 340K effective. I suspect that this brings the resolution down a bit but you certainly cannot see any difference between the cams on a 4:3 SD TV!!

    Guess I still need to study up a little more about chips and pixel distribution?? I notice that Canon's XL1 has a much lower pixel count that most cameras but performs well in low light!!

    Is the "less effective pixels = more sensitivity" a correct statement??

    Chris

  4. #14
    Yes Chris, thanks for that update. Some thoughts from what I can understand.

    Total pixel count refers to pixels on a single CCD chip whether it is a single-chip or 3-chip camera, although literally speaking, they are 'x-number of pixels X 3'.

    Is the "less effective pixels = more sensitivity" a correct statement??


    I don't think it is right to say that.

    Effective pixels belong to that part of the CCD chip where the image is captured and processed into digital signals on tape, and ultimately, on your screen. Non-effective pixels are the parts of the CCD where the image is not projected onto the chip. Imagine a circular lens projecting an inverted circular image onto a piece of chip. Our screens are limited to only a 4:3 or 16:9 format, so there is possibility of light falloffs. Those, I would believe, are the non-effective pixels. Of course, I have to disclaim that I understand this from the standpoint of a DSLR. So do correct me if I'm wrong.

    In another post I wrote that:

    1. Physical size does not mean more pixels
    In fact, not squeezing pixels together is good, and allows better performance in low light (more pixels on smaller chip means less light can be gathered, smaller surface area?). Not the best example but that's why my 5-megapixel DSLR is tons better than a 8-megapixel compact digital camera, save superior optics and processor.
    The MD10000 does not 'squeeze' so many photosites (or pixels) onto the CCD chips, so with a more 'generous' area, it has the ability to capture more light based on amt of light per photosite area.

    Lastly Canon does a fine job of using interpolation to maintain their resolution quality while having a low pixel count, I think.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  5. #15
    Quote
    Quote: ChrisHarding
    View Post
    Is the "less effective pixels = more sensitivity" a correct statement??
    I have to agree with nagar here. Fewer effective pixels with the sensor area the same size (or at least receiving the same amount of light) and the physical size of each pixel the same would yield more sensitivity, but pixels are not all the same size and may have various amounts of spacing between them. Think of each pixel as a rectangular piece of paper with a square drawn on it, if you take a light and shine it into a lens, focused on a 10' square piece of paper with a 5' square drawn, that 5' square will receive more light than a 3' square on the same piece of paper, there may be 4 of each such squares on that sheet of paper for either the 3' or 5' squares, the 5' squares definitely are more sensitive.
    Eric Adler (tonsofpcs)
    http://www.videoproductionsupport.com/ Chat at: http://tinyurl.com/vpschat
    Follow me on twitter: @videosupport @eric_adler

  6. #16
    Hi Guys

    Many thanks for the explanation..makes plenty of sense now!!

    I was simply trying to figure out why the one cam with a much higher effective pixel count and bigger chips, had a significantly poorer low-light performance with the same lens, shutter speed and aperture (no gain was set!)

    Nice to have some brains around when you need them!!

    Chris

  7. #17
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3

    Surprised

    I've used that camera before and I was surprisingly impressed. My co-workers had all told me it was an old POS, so I was expecting an old 3/4 umatic camera... I'll admit, I didn't think it could really perform, but it was just spacecamp videos for kids so it didn't really matter, and it was all the company had.

    It did well, but the point I was trying to make is even though it was a shoulder-mount camera, the people who saw it (and knew nothing about cameras) still thought it was really out of date and therefore crappy quality.

    I still to this day can't convince them otherwise... If I know I have a camera-nazi client, I'll slap on a shotgun, a lav mic pack, & rail system for remote focus control and they never question me again.

    *shrug*

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube