Hi, I'm in the market to buy a 3CCD camera. I am a little confused though by the whole CCD thing. I know that the bigger the CCD, the better, which makes the VX2000 rank the best in that regard.
However, I thought that more PIXELS per CCD were better too. I notice that the Panasonic PV-DV953 has the smallest CCDs at 1/6" but it has the most pixels (800,000) per CCD, while the VX2000 has 1/3" CCDs and 380,000 each...I need your expertise here, thank you!

Mike
sdsumike619@hotmail.com

For video, resolution is limited (to about 530 lines), so more pixels (for video) is not beneficial. However, larger CCDs and pixels are beneficial in capturing more light and color accuracy.

thanks for the quick reply. Still a tad bit confused however - If the lines of resolution (530) is common to them all, then why the significant difference between 380,000 pixels per CCD on the VX2000 and 800,000 pixels on the PV-DV953?

mike

Here is the deal -- bigger CCDs are better because they are both more sensitive to lower light, and also they have less noise since each "pixel" can hold more electrons.

More pixels are better in some cases for various reasons, such as still photos, digital image stabilization, and also for (a hair) more resolution. Oh, and if you have a CCD with megapixels, you can do stuff like have a good 4:3 and 16:9 mode by choosing which pixels to use.

Now one thing you must know is that resolution is not the only goal. Low noise and low light sensitivity is actually a more important goal and is what makes super expensive pro cameras look like super expensive pro cameras.

Canon used less pixels for the XL1 on purpose and for good reason.

I see - I also read in another forum that the video quality of the TRV-950 rivals that of the VX2000 simply because it's a lot newer technology....

Here's my basic situation. I am going to be recording guitar music instruction videos for sale on a website. The first few volumes were made on a GL1 and they look great...Will there be a SIGNIFICANTLY noticable difference if I opt to use the TRV-950 or the Panasonic PV-DV953?

From a lot of the posts I've read on here and other sites,, people that own these cameras say that the only thing better on the GL2 or VX2000 is the "better in low light conditions" This won't be an issue I presume if I'm shooting in a room with LOTS of light, yes, no?

Also, another thing that popped up was audio and being able to disable the AGC. Originally I thought that is what separated the prosumer from the consumer level cameras....Then I discovered that both the 950 and panasonic 953 have these manual controls...

As far as I can tell, either the pvdv953 or sony trv950 should do the job just fine (obviously the Sony would be better than the Panasonic purely based on the CCD size)

Any advice would be great!!

The models that you mention are quite comparable (except, maybe the Panasonic with smaller CCDs).

quite comparable indeed... I decided to do my own little test to see what was going on.

I went to the stores and taped about a minute or so of each of these cameras in the store: TRV950, PVDV953, GL2, VX2100. All of them were with full automatic control, no manual settings enabled. Here's what I discovered:

VX2100 - Picture rather pale but clear

TRV950 - Much RICHER color with hardly noticeable difference in
actual quality.

GL2 - Color OK, felt like middle of the road I guess

PVDV953 - Well the panasonic, despite having the smallest CCDs
of the four cameras was just as clear in my opinion as
the others, excellent audio, low camera noise...
HOWEVER, while I was recording and then after while
I watched it on the TV I noticed that the picture
looked stretched vertically,, almost like in those old
movies where they intentionally do that to the film
and make everyone look taller and thinner,, long faces
and what not,,, is this normal for that camera? I can't
imagine that it would be normal to have a vertically
stretched out image....

Well these are my findings - Based on them I'm looking to go with the TRV-950 unless I can find out about the stretched out video on the Panasonic...

As always, looking forward to some more expertise!

Your immediate goal would be as you have stated, however, you should also consider your future goals as well. A situation may come up that you may very well need the lower light capabilities of the VX2000/2100.

It would not be a good thing to limit your capabilities by looking only at your current goal(s).

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com

well I also read that the 950 and the Pan 953's "low light" problems can easily be overcome with adjustments to settings and a camera light...I don't know,,, I just didn't see justification for the price difference between all the cameras... Especially the difference between the VX and the TRV.....

Do you know anything about what I was talking about how the 953 made everything looked stretched both in the LCD and when played back on the TV?

Mike

Here is a portion of a post I found from another forum.

----------------------------------------

The low light performance of the PDX10 is poor, and alongside the much bigger VX2000 it lags by three whole stops, and three and a half stops at full telephoto. To put this into perspective you’d have the PDX10 at maximum aperture and +18dB of gain up in the same light that that the VX2000 would simply be at maximum aperture. This huge difference hides the fact that in practise the PDX10 has very low noise chips, and even using +12 dB of gain it difficult to see the grain. The loss of colour information is very noticeable however.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The PDX10 is the same as the trv950 when it comes to how it handles video and low light.

As for the stretching problem, I saw this once with my TRV38 when the 16:9 wide mode wasn't set correctly.

I know you had it in full auto mode but there may have been a setting that was messed with that you didn't know about.

Just guessing on the stretch problem...

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com

Can someone clarify for me:

The PDX10 'features' include 3 16:9 CCDs, and they make a big fuss about how they are real 16:9 chips.

The 950 is listed as having 3 CCDs, but says nothing about them, being 16:9. This leads me to belive they are large 4:3 chips which can be cropped into a decent widescreen mode, still without loss of quality.

But I was under the impression the PDX10 and 950 were the same camera, one with XLR inputs for pros, etc.

Are the chips the same on these two cameras?

I've never even heard of this so-called PDX10 ! I thought I'd found all the 3CCD cameras?

Oh man, in that review they say the CCDs are 4:3!!!

Did anyone ever notice the huge amount of misinformation regarding these things?

Now that is the right way to shop a video camera....compare side by side and decide based on personal preference. Way to go.