VideoUniversity.com
Home Free Library Store
Free Catalog

Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com?BI=603&KBID=1017"><IMG src="/images/flash_ads/videoUniv2_revised_conv.jpg" alt="B&H Photo" width="260" height="70"></a>
Video University Sponsor
Advertisement

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members
Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index Search Posts
Who's Online Log In


Home: Video University Forums: Sony DV and DVCAM Forum:
VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ???

 
 


X-Adam
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 12:24 AM

Post #1 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? Can't Post
Hi,
Can someone explain why the VX2000 advertises the advanced new HAD chips for lower noise levels in your video images, while the PD 150 doesn't say that. The PD 150 just says it has "newly developed 3 CCD chips". Is there a difference ?

Thanks,
Adam.


X-Michael_Munkittrick
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 8:23 AM

Post #2 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? Can't Post
The PD-150 actually uses the "older" VX-1000 style chips, buy interprets the info a bit better. The HAD chips aren't really any better than the older style CCDs due to the reduced number of the pixels per CCD. PD-150 chips have a superior ability to collect high contrast information in situations where the lighting is a bit "overkill". Bottom line, the PD-150 has a little higher resolution and the VX-2000 has a bit better low light performance.
Michael


X-Dave
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 10:19 AM

Post #3 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
: The PD-150 actually uses the "older" VX-1000 style chips, buy interprets the info a bit better. The HAD chips aren't really any better than the older style CCDs due to the reduced number of the pixels per CCD. PD-150 chips have a superior ability to collect high contrast information in situations where the lighting is a bit "overkill". Bottom line, the PD-150 has a little higher resolution and the VX-2000 has a bit better low light performance.

I'm curious as to where you got this information. The PD150 and VX2000 use the same IT ccd chipset. AFAIK, Sony using the term HAD with the VX2000 is not used as a 'true' specification. (notice on the VX2000 website HAD is in quotes).




X-Michael_Munkittrick
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 12:55 PM

Post #4 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
<center><img src="http://www.wwug.com/images/InterFace/toplogo/wwugLogoTop_r1_c1.jpg"></center>


X-Andre
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 2:59 PM

Post #5 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
Can't you be more specific and inform us in more detail about your "Sony technical guide"? . If you have close contacts with Sony plse ask them for some articles written by their worldwide recognized guru on CCD imagers Larry Thorpe. If your sources are knowledgeable about CCD and HAD concepts they will certainly know him. Unfortunately this articles contradict fully your information on HAD imagers. At the time Sony introduced its HAD concepts (end of the 80's beginning of the 90's) there were lots of publications in many professional broadcast magazines and symposia proceedings. Maybe this could also be a good source for you.
Andre


: I got this information from my Sony technical guide (provided to employees. If you have any questions please go to www.wwug.com and go to the Sony DV page. There you will not oly see my ugly mug, but the fact that I work for Sony USA as a technical advisor and information specialist.
: Michael


X-Michael_Munkittrick
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 9:43 PM

Post #6 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
Actually HAD chips have been around since the mid 80s, but the realization of the "HyperHAD" wasn't until the late-80s (1989 to be exact). The diference is a well doccumented white paper from Sony (unfortunately not freely available to the general public without wrightning to them yourself). Anyone who refutes the inferiority of HADs when compared to HyperHADs is plain nuts. BTW, Larry Thorpe is a great engineer, but is far from a "worldwide guru" of CCD technology.He simply restates the obvious to those who have a hard time understanding the manuals.
Michael


X-Dave
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 10:11 PM

Post #7 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
Michael,
Discussion of HAD v. HyperHAD aside, why hasn't there been mention elsewhere - that I could find anyway - that there is a difference in the ccd's used in the 2000 and 150? Moreover, why would a camera with IT ccd's cost ~$1000 more than a camera with HAD ccd's? Not to mention, people seem to find the picture output of the two absolutely identical upon comparison - regardless of lighting conditions.




X-Adam
Imported Account

Mar 2, 2001, 11:24 PM

Post #8 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
Just looking at the big picture it seems that the DVCAM model is not a major improvement over the consumer VX2000. you get a higher track pitch for heavy editing and the XLR connections. But since the VX2000 has the HAD, it seems to me that it would have better signal to noise ratio . . . .a better choice over the PD-150.
What do you think ??

-Adam-


X-Andre
Imported Account

Mar 3, 2001, 7:38 AM

Post #9 of 10 (1331 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
You are apparently not belonging to the professional video community (SMPTE, IS&T, SPIE...), otherwise you should know better about Thorpe.
Andre


: Actually HAD chips have been around since the mid 80s, but the realization of the "HyperHAD" wasn't until the late-80s (1989 to be exact). The diference is a well doccumented white paper from Sony (unfortunately not freely available to the general public without wrightning to them yourself). Anyone who refutes the inferiority of HADs when compared to HyperHADs is plain nuts. BTW, Larry Thorpe is a great engineer, but is far from a "worldwide guru" of CCD technology.He simply restates the obvious to those who have a hard time understanding the manuals.
: Michael


X-simon
Imported Account

Mar 4, 2001, 11:34 AM

Post #10 of 10 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: VX2000 H.A.D. but PD150 doesn't ??? [In reply to] Can't Post
How come the specifications in the Manual for PD-150 give the size of the CCD's at 380,000 pixels, 340,000 effective pixels with a minimum of 2 lux at f1.4.
This is exactly the same specifications as for the vx2000, as printed in the vx2000 manual aswell.
Unless Sony is not printing correct specifications in the manuals that ship with their products, then the PD-150's CCD's are the same size as the vx2000.
The vx1000 had 410,000 pixels.
: The PD-150 actually uses the "older" VX-1000 style chips, buy interprets the info a bit better. The HAD chips aren't really any better than the older style CCDs due to the reduced number of the pixels per CCD. PD-150 chips have a superior ability to collect high contrast information in situations where the lighting is a bit "overkill". Bottom line, the PD-150 has a little higher resolution and the VX-2000 has a bit better low light performance.
: Michael