|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8
|
![]()
I still haven't made up my mind of which hybrid to get. I tried the pure digital one and it was fairly good. However, I want quality that is good enough to play full screen without become pixilated. Does this require a CCD sensor camera instead of a CMOS? Why do these companies say VGA quality if I really can't play back full screen without it looking nasty?
Thanks! |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 415
|
![]()
Are you talking about playback on a PC or a TV? If a PC, did you try setting the resolution of the monitor down to 640x480?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8
|
![]()
Is that what I have to do to show a full screen movie? That doesn't sound convenient. Why is it that I can play DVDs "full screen" on my Mac and they don't look pixilated and grainy? Do I need to buy an HD camera to accomplish this? Or am I just not seeing something?
Thanks! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC NY
Posts: 9,684
|
![]()
ha ha ha
you are notdoing something correctly or that pure digital one has no specs saying its res size 640x480 is the correct size while dvd may be at 540 x720 may be right or wrong sorry. ccd is a more exspensive chip or sensor , and requires space, while cmos is electronic. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8
|
![]()
So is there a hybrid that you know of that does use a CCD sensor? I want the best quality I can get, and I need it to be in a hybrid.
Thanks. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC NY
Posts: 9,684
|
![]()
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=92
here is a person X he wants to get rid of one that's a start |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,084
|
![]()
The only difference between a CCD and CMOS is that a CCD generally has better low light ability and hence less noisy in those conditions otherwise it shoudn't affect how pixellated it may look. This has more to do with how good the devices compression is. 640x480 should be more than adequate for a TV as this is the same resolution as a regular MiniDV camcorder.
Also how big a TV are we on about? A regular 27" TV or a large projection TV? You also do not need to change the resolution of your PC as it will automatically resize it to the display. It has more to do with actual display size rather than how many pixels it has. My laptop is 1680 x 1050 and the videos from my Sanyo C40 look quite good to me fullscreen. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 887
|
![]()
I don't think any of the cameras using MPEG4 are capable of clear, detailed video at tv screen size. You have to find something not using compression, which of course means much larger files, which eat up memory and bog down your computer. Full screen "full" detail awaits either more powerful compression software, or increased bandwidth in the sensor/camera data rate, increased memory capacity, more powerful computers etc.
I have found that there is a big difference in image quality between tv's, with the more expensive ones making the MPEG4 playback look better. I don't think choosing between CCD and CMOS sensors make any significant difference in this regard. I have two very different CCD cameras at the moment, and one is much less "noisy" in dim light than the other. Any difference in detail quality can be equated to the amount of compression being done. Good lighting and careful technique can yield results that can be good enough for me. But I'd like to see the compression turned down now that higher capacity memory cards can be used. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|